CONTROVERSIES 

BETWEEN 

Royal  Governors  and  their 

Assemblies 

in  THE 

NORTHERN  AMERICAN  COLONIES 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Philosophy  of  the  Catholic  University  of 
America  in  Partied  Fulfillment  of  its  Requirements  for  the 
Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


By 

Rey.  JOHN  F.  BURNS,  O.  S.  A. 

Op  the  Province  of  St.  Thomas  of  Villanova 

Villanova,  Pa. 

1923 


..  ...  - 

■  •  S;  '  :•  , 

4  A 

Be.  vj,.  'v'::  v.  .;v  , 

■ 


a;  % 


CONTROVERSIES 

BETWEEN 

Royal  Governors  and  their 

Assemblies 

IN  THE 

NORTHERN  AMERICAN  COLONIES 

A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Philosophy  of  the  Catholic  University  of 
America  in  Partial  Fulfillment  of  its  Requirements  for  the 
Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


y 

Rev.  JOHN  F.  BURNS,  O.  S.  A. 

Of  the  Province  of  St.  Thomas  of  Villanova 

Villanova,  Pa. 

1923 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


By  the 

WRIGHT  AND  POTTER  PRINTING  COMPANY 
BOSTON,  MASS. 


/ 


PREFACE 


This  venture  into  the  “forgotten  half  century”  of  our 
history  has  been  undertaken  in  the  hope  of  bringing  into 
more  distinct  relief  the  origins  of  the  gradually  increasing 
political  divergence  between  England  and  British  North 
America,  through  investigation  of  the  relations  between 
colonial  royal  Governors  and  representative  Assemblies. 
Adequate  treatment  in  the  space  of  one  volume  is  impossible. 
This  study  therefore  confines  its  investigations  to  the  north- 

i 

ern  royal  colonies;  that  is,  to  Massachusetts,  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  New  York,  and  New  Jersey. 

The  fact  of  disturbed  relations  with  the  King’s  representa¬ 
tives  is  already  well  known.  The  present  writer’s  purpose 
has  therefore  been  to  show  in  some  detail  the  content, 
progress,  and  solution  of  the  more  important  disputes,  in 
order  to  determine  therefrom  the  extent  of  their  influence 
on  the  final  conflict  for  complete  independence  of  English 
political  control. 

The  period  covered  may  be  described  in  general  as  that 
between  the  English  Revolution  of  1688  and  the  American 
Revolution  of  1775-1783.  In  particular  the  treatment  of 
each  colony  commences  with  the  earliest  provisions  for  a 
representative  Assembly  and  royal  Governor. 

The  chief  sources  have  been  the  Assembly  Journals,  the 
correspondence  between  Governors  and  the  home  authorities, 
local  histories,  and  biographies.  In  the  case  of  New  Jersey, 


4 


PREFACE 


where  earlier  investigators  have  written  admirable  and  de¬ 
tailed  histories  based  wholly  upon  primary  sources,  and 
covering  in  large  measure  the  scope  of  this  work,  reliance 
has  been  placed  on  these  accepted  secondary  authorities. 

To  Professors  Charles  H.  McCarthy,  Ph.D.,  and  Richard 
J.  Purcell,  Ph.D.,  of  the  Catholic  University  of  America, 
to  Mr.  John  H.  Edmonds,  State  Archivist  of  Massachusetts, 
to  Mr.  Albert  Matthews,  A.B.,  editor  of  the  Colonial  Society, 
as  well  as  to  courteous  officials  in  the  libraries  of  the  Massa¬ 
chusetts  Historical  Society,  of  Harvard  College,  and  of 
Congress,  the  author  wishes  to  express  his  sincere  apprecia¬ 
tion  for  scholarly  direction  and  kindly  encouragement.  Nor 
can  he  close  without  an  expression  of  gratitude  for  the  train¬ 
ing  in  method,  acquired  in  the  classes  of  the  Reverend 
Doctors  Patrick  McCormick,  Peter  Guilday,  and  Patrick 
Healy,  in  the  history  of  education  and  in  church  history. 

JOHN  F.  BURNS,  O.  S.  A. 

Villanova,  Penna.,  June,  1923. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction . 7 


Part  I.  —  Massachusetts 

CHAPTER 

I.  Early  Democratic  Opposition,  1644-1730  ...  33 

II.  Enlarging  Interpretation  of  Constitutional  Rights, 

1730-1760  .  94 

III.  Definite  Repudiation  of  English  Control,  1760-1776  148 


« 

Part  II.  —  New  Hampshire,  New  York, 

New  Jersey 

IV.  New  Hampshire . 

V.  New  York . 

VI.  New  Jersey . 

Conclusion . 

Bibliography . 

Index  . 


244 

286 

374 

415 

423 

429 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/controversiesbetOOburn 


INTRODUCTION 


Conventional  history  explains  the  causes  of  the  American 
Revolution  as  due  chiefly  to  the  short-sighted  British  policy 
that  characterized  the  score  of  years  preceding  1775.  The 
origins,  however,  of  that  important  event  may  be  traced  to 
a  period  much  more  remote.  In  fact,  there  are  authorities 
who  perceive  a  notable  divergence  between  English  and 
colonial  institutions  even  as  far  back  as  the  period  of  the 
Reformation.  With  regard  to  the  North  American  colonies, 
it  is  acknowledged  that  fully  half  a  century  before  1776 
they  had  outgrown  their  government.1  Hence  the  oppo¬ 
sition  of  colonial  Assemblies  —  the  popular  and  progressive 
branch  of  colonial  government  —  to  stereotyped  English 
control.  The  process  of  this  outgrowing  naturally  carries 
these  opposing  tendencies  at  least  as  far  back  as  the  be¬ 
ginnings  of  representative  government  in  America.  It 
seems,  therefore,  that  the  full  significance  of  the  troubles 
between  Assemblies  and  royal  Governors  cannot  properly  be 
appreciated  unless  viewed  with  some  preparatory  reference 
to  early  independent  tendencies  as  a  setting. 

As  early  as  1692  England  had  disallowed  a  Massachusetts 
law  against  taxation  without  representation.2  Evidences  of 
independent  tendencies  during  the  successive  years  from 
1701  to  1706  are  easily  available.  A  report  to  the  Board 
of  Trade  in  1716  reads: 

1  Edward  Channing,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  282. 

2  J.  S.  Barry,  History  of  Massachusetts  II,  4G;  see,  George  Bancroft,  History 
of  the  United  States,  1891  ed.,  II,  72,  85. 


8 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


.  .  .  that  the  officers  of  the  revenue  meet  with  many  discourage¬ 
ments  in  these  proprietary  plantations,  where  all  persons  ap¬ 
pointed  by  the  crown  are  looked  upon  as  an  imposition.3 

Another  statement  in  the  same  year,  noting  the  economic 
prosperity  implied  in  the  fact  that  the  “lower  orders ”  were 
provided  with  native-worked  wool  and  cotton,  declared: 

They  will  be  able  in  a  little  while  to  live  without  Great  Britain, 
and  their  ability,  joined  to  their  inclination ,  will  be  of  very  ill 
consequence. 

The  following  was  sent  two  years  later: 

...  all  belonging  to  the  crown  are  so  obnoxious  to  the  people 
in  New  England,  since  their  minds  have  been  poisoned  with  repub¬ 
lican  notions ,  that  it  is  very  dangerous  to  travel  alone. 

In  1723,  after  Governor  Shute  of  Massachusetts  had  been 
practically  driven  from  the  colony,  and  had  laid  before  the 
Board  of  Trade  his  grievances  against  the  General  Court, 
the  Board  concluded,  among  other  things,  that  the  inhab¬ 
itants  were  “endeavoring  ...  to  become  independent  of 
the  mother  country.”  4  A  few  years  later,  upon  the  refusal 
of  the  same  Court  to  grant  to  Governor  Burnet  a  fixed 
salary,  the  Board  reported: 

...  on  the  repeated  attempts  the  Assemblies  of  this  province 
have  made  towards  the  shaking  off  their  dependence  to  the 
Crown  and  their  dependence  to  the  mother  country.5 

Then,  in  1735,  came  “the  morning  star  of  that  liberty  which 
subsequently  revolutionized  America,”  —  the  Zenger  trial 

3  Report  of  Cummings,  Surveyor  of  the  Customs,  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  quoted 
by  George  Chalmers,  Introduction  to  the  Revolt  of  the  American  Colonies,  II,  9. 

4  Report  of  Cummings,  Surveyor  of  the  Customs,  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  quoted 
by  George  Chalmers,  Introduction  to  the  Revolt  of  the  American  Colonies,  II,  10,  12, 
25/. 

5  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  of  England,  Colonial  Series,  VI,  “The  Unbound 
Papers,”  entry  for  April  19,  1729. 


INTRODUCTION 


9 


in  New  York.6  Five  years  afterward,  when  Samuel  Adams 
was  being  graduated  from  Harvard,  he  took  as  his  Com¬ 
mencement  oration,  44  Whether  it  be  lawful  to  resist  the 
superior  magistrates  if  the  Commonwealth  cannot  be  other¬ 
wise  preserved?  ”  7  In  the  same  year,  also,  Governor  Belcher 
wrote : 

The  Massachusetts  have  certainly  been  infatuated  for  20  odd 
years  past,  &  have  seem’d  to  study  how  they  could  provoke  the 
King  and  his  Ministers.8 

In  1730,  the  same  Governor,  embroiled  in  continual 
wrangle  consequent  upon  the  King’s  instructions  regarding 
support  and  salary,  addressed  the  Assembly  as  follows, 
quoting  an  interesting  report  from  the  Board  of  Trade: 

Why  will  you  not  accept  His  Royal  Word,  as  a  warning  to 
avoid  the  Mischiefs  he  is  unwilling  you  should  bring  upon  your 
selves?  Every  Gentleman  that  will  allow  himself  to  think,  must 
be  sensible  that  the  Broils  you  have  been  in  with  your  Governours 
for  more  than  Ten  Years  past,  have  turned  out  to  the  great  Loss 
and  Disadvantage  of  the  good  People  of  this  Province.  I 
would  refer  you  to  the  Dispute  you  had  with  your  Governour  in 
the  Year  1723.  upon  which  you  will  find  the  Right  Honourable  the 
Lords  of  Trade  Reporting  to  the  Lords  Justices  of  the  Kingdom 
thus; 

44  Upon  this  Occasion,  we  think  it  our  Duty  to  inform  your  Excel¬ 
lencies,  That  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Massachusetts-Bay,  which 
contains  much  the  greatest  part  of  New-England,  are  incorpo¬ 
rated  by  the  Royal  Charter  of  their  late  Majesties  King  William 
and  Queen  Mary,  and  are  possess’d  of  a  vast  Tract  of  Land:  Their 
Government  consists  of  a  Governour,  Council  and  Assembly;  but 
the  Governour  only  is  appointed  by  His  Majesty,  without  any 

6  Channing,  op.  cit.,  II,  489.  For  excellent  account  of  Zenger  trial,  cf.  ibid., 
pp.  483jf. 

7  Justin  Winsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,  V,  139. 

8  Belcher  to  Richard  Waldron,  May  15,  1740,  Belcher  Papers,  in  Mass.  Hist. 
Soc.  Coll.,  Series  C,  VII,  298. 


10 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Salary  but  such  as  the  People  are  pleased  to  give  him,  and  that 
from  Year  to  Year.  The  Assembly,  consisting  of  Ninety  eight, 
are  chosen  by  the  People;  and  the  Council,  consisting  of  Twenty 
eight,  are  chosen  by  the  Assembly.  From  so  unequal  a  Balance  in 
their  Constitution,  daily  Inconveniencies  occur:  And  your  Excel¬ 
lencies  may  perceive  by  the  many  Facts  mentioned  in  this  Re¬ 
port,  that  the  Inhabitants  far  from  making  suitable  Returns  to 
His  Majesty  for  the  extraordinary  Privileges  they  enjoy,  are 
daily  endeavoring  to  wrest  the  small  Remains  of  Power  out  of 
the  Hands  of  the  Crown,  and  to  become  independent  of  their 
Mother  Kingdom.  The  Nature  of  their  Soil  and  Products  are 
much  the  same  with  those  of  Great  Britain:  The  Inhabitants  are 
numerous,  upwards  of  Ninety-Four  Thousand.  Their  Militia 
consists  of  Sixteen  Regiments  of  Foot,  and  Fifteen  Troops  of 
Horse,  making  in  the  Year  1718.  Fifteen  Thousand  Men.  And 
by  a  Medium  taken  from  the  Naval-Officer’s  Account  for  three 
Years,  from  the  24th  of  June  1714.  to  the  24th  of  June  1717.  for 
the  Ports  of  Boston  and  Salem  only,  it  appears  that  the  Trade  of 
this  Province  Annually  employs  no  less  than  3493  Sailors,  and 
492  Ships,  making  25406  Tons.  Hence  your  Excellencies  will  be 
apprized  of  what  Importance  it  is  to  His  Majesty’s  Service,  that 
so  powerful  a  Colony  should  be  restrained  within  the  due  Bounds 
of  Obedience  to  the  Crown,  and  be  more  firmly  attached  to  the 
Interest  of  Great  Britain  than  they  at  present  seem  to  be;  which 
we  conceive  cannot  effectually  be  done,  without  the  Interposition 
of  the  British  Legislature,  wherein  in  our  humble  Opinion  no  Time 
should  be  lost.”  9 

Inferences  of  a  similar  nature  can  be  seen  in  the  following 
excerpt  from  a  letter  written  in  1756  by  a  “true  British 
subject,”  of  unknown  identity,  who  had  apparently  been 
requested  to  prepare  an  account  of  conditions  in  the  colonies 
from  1753  to  1756: 

I  am  prompted  by  an  unfeigned  desire  of  serving  my  country, 
.  .  .  Candour  and  integrity  shall  therefore  guide  my  pen.  .  .  . 

9  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  1730,  p.  68. 


INTRODUCTION 


11 


The  American  colonies,  I  speak  it  with  submission,  my  Lord,  were 
too  long  neglected  by  their  mother  country;  though  loudly  de¬ 
manding  her  patronage  and  assistance.  .  .  .  Our  assemblies 
are  diffident  of  their  Governours;  Governours  despise  their 
Assemblies.10 

* 

These  early  attitudes  of  independence  find  an  even  more 
important  place  in  this  study  when  it  is  remembered  that 
the  Assemblies,  in  their  conflicts  with  royal  Governors, 
constituted  the  organized  expression  of  public  opinion,  and 
were  identified  with  the  struggle  of  the  people  for  enlarging 
their  governmental  privileges.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Governor,  as  agent  of  the  Crown  and  representing  British 
interests,  stood  identified  with  the  restraining  and  often 

* 

mistaken  policy  of  the  parent  state.11  As  such,  he  could 
not  well  avoid  conflict  with  the  embodiment  of  local  and 
provincial,  and  sometimes  of  even  broader,  American 
interests. 

There  are  grounds,  also,  for  reading  into  the  hostile  atti¬ 
tude  of  Assemblies  toward  their  Governors  a  concomitant 
hostility  toward  the  power  that  appointed  them.  The  pre¬ 
rogative  was  considered  as  an  interest  separate  and  distinct 
from  the  interests  of  the  colony.  The  attempt,  therefore,  to 
enforce  it  was  regarded  as  an  encroachment  upon  colonial 
liberties.  Forty  years  before  the  Revolution,  a  Governor 
of  Massachusetts  wrote: 

[The  representatives]  endeavor  to  treat  me  with  all  possible 
injustice,  and  to  distress  me  all  the  wayes  they  can,  and  for  no 
other  reason  but  for  my  fidelity  to  his  Majesty.12 

10  The  title  of  this  letter  is  A  Review  of  the  Military  Operations  in  North  America, 
from  the  Commencement  of  the  French  Hostilities  on  the  Frontiers  of  Virginia  in  1753, 
to  the  Surrender  of  Oswego  on  the  lJph  of  August,  1756;  in  a  Letter  to  a  Nobleman. 
Cf.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  I,  VII,  G7,  161.  It  is  said  to  have  been  written 
by  Governor  Livingston  and  two  lawyers,  Scot  and  Smith  of  New  York. 

11  Greene,  op.  cit.,  pp.  204,  205. 

12  Jonathan  Belcher  to  Newcastle,  Oct.  4,  1733.  Belcher  Papers  in  Mass.  Hist. 
Soc.  Coll.,  Series  6,  VI,  386. 


n 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


On  the  other  hand,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  King  was 
very  often  appealed  to  as  guardian  of  liberty  and  safe  re¬ 
source  from  the  oppression  of  Governors.  In  time,  there¬ 
fore,  allegiance  to  Great  Britain  became  synonymous  with 
loyalty  to  the  King,  or,  more  accurately,  to  the  Crown 
rather  than  to  Parliament.  The  latter  was  to  the  colonials 
an  English  legislature  rather  than  an  imperial  parliament. 
Petitions  to  the  King  were  being  read  in  England  almost 
simultaneously  with  the  firing  of  the  first  shot  that  heralded 
independence  in  America. 

The  significance  of  the  conflicts  and  controversies  between 
royal  Governors  and  their  Assemblies  is  further  emphasized 
in  view  of  the  historical  background  of  American  coloniza¬ 
tion.  The  English  colonists  could  hardly  forget  the  seven¬ 
teenth  century  struggles  in  which  the  wheel  of  power  was 
forced  around  until  Parliament  beheld  its  power  dominant. 
During  Tudor  times,  royalty  wielded  the  supreme  au¬ 
thority,  and  the  powers  of  Parliament  were  largely  in  abey¬ 
ance;  then  came  the  change,  and  Parliament,  for  a  variety 
of  reasons  well  known,  grasped  the  authority.13 

It  was  just  at  this  period,  with  the  balance  of  power 
swinging  from  the  Crown  to  Parliament,  —  even  to  the 
Commons,  one  might  safely  add,  —  that  emigration  to 
America  began.  Nor  was  it  the  higher  classes,  —  those 
imbued  with  royalist  sentiments,  —  who  emigrated,  unless 
it  was  as  seekers  of  patronage  to  float  upon  the  colonial 
system  as  Governors,  or  placemen  filling  offices  of  honor  and 
advantage.  The  colonists,  who  were  later  to  speak  through 
the  colonial  Assemblies  and  to  leave  their  impress  upon 
colonial  thought,  came  rather  from  the  lower  and  middle 
classes.  They  were  the  persecuted,  the  dissatisfied,  and 
the  restless  men  of  the  nation,  the  natural  sympathizers 
with  the  Parliamentarians.  Nor  was  the  respect  or  the 

13  E.  P.  Cheyney,  European  Background  of  American  History ,  pp.  256^. 


INTRODUCTION 


13 


loyalty  of  these  classes  increased  by  the  attitude  manifested 
toward  them  by  the  ruling  classes.  It  was  not  pleasant  for 
emigrants  to  America  to  be  regarded  as  the  “scum  of  the 
people,”  who  “leapt  thither  from  the  gallows  .  .  .  spat  out 
of  England’s  mouth.”  And  when  in  the  process  of  time  the 
colonies  flourished,  and  therefore  became  immediately  the 
“hunting  ground  of  rival  cliques,”  tendencies  toward  inde¬ 
pendence  can  still  better  be  understood.14 

The  European  background  throughout  the  seventeenth 
century,  also,  when  the  struggle  against  the  royal  claims 
became  even  more  intense,  could  not  but  affect  the  colonies. 
Parliament  now  spoke  not  so  much  of  privileges ,  but 
seemed  to  hark  back  to  ancient  rights.  Then,  as  an  index  to 
the  progress  of  the  political  philosophy  of  civil  liberty  against 
the  arbitrariness  of  the  Crown,  came  the  Petition  of  Rights 
of  1629;  the  Grand  Remonstrance  following  the  crisis  in 
December,  1641;  the  Civil  War;  the  Republican  experi¬ 
ment;  the  written  Cromwellian  Instrument  of  Government, 
and  ultimately  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  1689.  This  period  was 
therefore  one  of  intensive,  even  poignant,  political  experi¬ 
ence.  And  the  lesson  taught  and  retained  was  the  conscious¬ 
ness  of  the  heritage  of  civil  freedom.  It  was  largely  this 
consciousness  that  encouraged,  if  it  did  not  inspire,  the 
hostility  of  so  many  colonial  Assemblies  to  the  direct  and 
irritatingly  detailed  control  through  Governors  armed  with 
royal  instructions. 

In  comparative  proximity  to  the  culmination  of  these 
movements  toward  popular  liberty,  the  Assemblies  came 
into  existence.  These  institutions  served  as  the  answer  to 
a  seventeenth  century  demand.  It  was  natural,  therefore, 
that  the  colonists  should  look  upon  themselves  as  possessing 
the  rights  of  Englishmen,  and  upon  their  legislative  bodies 

14  Lord  Bacon,  Writings,  quoted  by  E.  D.  Sanborn,  History  of  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  p.  409;  and  Fuller,  quoted  ibidem;  also  James  Truslow  Adams,  The  Found¬ 
ing  of  New  England,  p.  295. 


14 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


as  having  attributes  similar  to  those  enjoyed  by  the  English 
Parliament,  the  lower  House  possessing  powers  akin  to 
those  won  and  exercised  by  the  House  of  Commons.  And 
with  the  executive  in  England  so  dominated  by  the  legis¬ 
lative  branch,  it  was  hardly  reasonable  to  expect  that  colonial 
Assemblies  would  submit  to  domination  by  a  King’s  man 
in  the  person  of  the  Governor.  The  very  nature  of  the 
political  background  and  the  practical  application  of  its 
theories  of  sovereignty  gave  promise  of  conflict  between  the 
representatives  of  the  people  and  the  agent  of  the  Crown. 

Furthermore,  the  Assemblies,  especially  those  of  the 
colonies  under  consideration,  were  imbued  with  the  political 
theories  of  seventeenth  century  and  Puritan  radicalism, 
while  the  royal  Governors  were  of  the  reactionary  eighteenth 
century  toryism.  Colonials  of  the  pre-revolutionary  period 
were  descendants  of  the  English  fugitives  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  —  largely  Puritans,  with  some  royalists  of  moderate 
tone.  Later  immigrants  came,  but  the  controlling  group 
during  the  whole  pre-revolutionary  era  was  chiefly  recruited 
from  the  older  immigration.  Sons  of  the  seventeenth  century 
liberals,  they  belonged,  in  language,  culture,  and  political 
thought,  to  the  period  of  the  Civil  Wars.  And  their  environ¬ 
ment  abroad,  with  its  frontier  life  of  independent  outlook, 
accentuated  their  liberalism  as  well  as  their  self-sufficiency, 
while  the  eighteenth  century  developed  still  further  the 
germinating  liberal  philosophy.  In  England  the  contrary 
was  true:  Toryism  was  then  in  power;  George  III  would 
rule;  and  for  the  time  the  results  of  the  glorious  revolt  of 
1688  were  set  aside.  The  Crown  was  attempting  to  regain 
lost  prerogatives,  and  a  subservient  Parliament  forgot  their 
heritage.  Reaction  was  in  control.  Affrighted,  Englishmen 
stood  still  or  drew  backward.  They  failed  to  develop  the 
doctrinaire  political  theories  of  the  Parliamentarians  or  of 
those  who  formulated  the  Bill  of  Rights  as  a  written  safe¬ 
guard  against  possible  usurpations  by  the  Parliament’s 


INTRODUCTION 


15 


virtual  nominees,  William  and  Mary.  Englishmen  in 
America  and  at  home  were  drawing  apart.  Politically  they 
were  soon  speaking  different  languages  rather  than  different 
dialects. 

The  gulf  was  destined  still  further  to  widen.  English¬ 
men  in  America  were  unconsciously  developing  into  a  new 
people.  Civil  war  was  still  afar  off,  but  colonials  were 
groping  ahead,  far  ahead  of  an  England  controlled  by  a 
Parliament  which  was  in  turn  dominated  by  conservative 
landed  and  church  interest,  and  by  financial  and  commercial 
groups  busied  in  the  exploitation  of  the  nation  and  especially 
of  the  colonies,  as  sources  of  raw  materials  and  markets  for 
manufactured  goods.  Americans  were  coming  to  the  time 
when  they  would  be  willing  to  follow  the  Bill  of  Rights  with 
a  Declaration  of  Independence. 

This  spirit,  as  well  as  the  consequent  trouble  it  made  for 
the  Governors  through  the  Assemblies,  was  due  partly  to 
the  traditional  and  now  increasingly  conscious  heritage  of 
freedom,  and  partly  to  the  influence  of  the  frontier,  for  the 
colonies  were  the  frontier  fringe  of  England,  and  the  frontier 
has  ever  been  democratic,  a  very  laboratory  of  democracy 
whether  in  the  colonies,  the  trans-Allegheny  West,  or  in 
England’s  last  outposts,  —  her  self-governing  dependencies. 
To  this  frontier  influence  may  be  traced  the  origins  of  new, 
and  for  England,  disastrous  theories  concerning  parlia¬ 
mentary  representation,  the  royal  prerogative  in  its  strict 
limitation,  the  powers  of  Parliament  as  related  to  England 
in  contrast  to  the  empire,  the  rights  of  an  established  church, 
constitutional  powers  of  popularly  chosen  provincial  legis¬ 
latures,  the  duties  of  Governors,  and  the  inherent  right  of 
local  autonomy,  —  in  a  word,  the  whole  question  of  sov¬ 
ereignty.  In  respect  to  these  questions  Englishmen  and 
Americans  were  widely  divergent  in  their  interpretation  of 
the  English  constitution  and  its  guarantees. 

Moreover,  an  unwritten  constitution  is  liable  to  varied 


16 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


interpretation  in  the  light  of  different  experiences.  As¬ 
suredly  experiences  in  America  were  new  and  were  far 
different.  The  colonials  might  actually  be  called  “states 
rights”  men.  Therefore  they  interpreted  narrowly  the 
powers  of  the  royal  Governor.  To  them  he  was  no  viceroy. 
They  refused  him  loyalty,  even  honor.  He  was  a  placeman; 
he  was  a  Tory  in  politics,  while  they,  without  party  affilia¬ 
tions,  were  really  Whigs.  He  was  an  Anglican  in  creed,  while 
they  were  dissenters  in  religion.  They  were,  in  addition, 
democrats.  His  instructions,  therefore,  they  questioned; 
his  veto  they  assailed,  for  they  noted  no  vetoes  of  Parlia¬ 
mentary  acts  by  the  Crown  since  Anne’s  reign.  A  stipulated, 
definite  salary  they  refused  to  grant,  for  in  their  vote  of  a 
salary  they  recognized  a  check,  a  popular  control.  Judges 
and  local  officials  must  be  their  servants,  not  his,  and  depend 
upon  their  appropriation  list,  not  his  civil  list.  A  military, 
unless  it  was  rigidly  restrained,  they  feared  even  more  than 
Englishmen  did,  for  they  were  nearer  in  spirit  to  the  Crom¬ 
wellian  usurpation  and  military  rule.  Again,  as  frontiersmen, 
as  debtors  of  England,  they  insisted,  as  the  frontier  ever  has 
insisted  in  American  history,  upon  bills  of  credit,  paper 
money,  as  an  easier  means  of  governmental  support  than 
taxation.  And  to  this,  as  an  Englishman  with  the  pound 
sterling  as  his  measure  —  too  often  also  morally  —  the 
Governor  disagreed.  In  the  face  of  such  differences  the 
existence  of  pliant,  peaceful  Assemblies  would  have  been  a 
political  miracle. 

Another  incentive  to  aggression  lay  in  the  fact  that  the 
Assemblies  really  constituted  the  only  effective  shield  for 
popular  liberties.  Legal  safeguards  were  merely  nominal. 
At  once  subordinate  to  and  an  integral  part  of  the  British 
Empire,  the  colonies  could  take  refuge  against  oppression  in 
an  appeal  to  the  sovereign,  petition  to  Parliament,  in  nego¬ 
tiations  through  the  colonial  agents,  and  lastly,  in  the  local 
representative  body  of  self-government.  Because  the  first 


INTRODUCTION 


17 


three  were  least  convenient  and  certain,  it  was  natural  to 
focus  attention  and  dependence  upon  the  fourth,  and  the 
Assembly  everywhere  accepted  the  role  of  protector  and 
even  enlarger  of  liberties.  That  it  should  do  so  was  partly 
natural,  due  to  the  general  influences  mentioned  above;  but 
the  role  was  also  forced  upon  it  by  England’s  misunder¬ 
standing  of  colonial  problems  and  her  consequent  errors  in 
policy,  not  that  she  did  not  act  on  a  basis  of  strict  legality. 

It  was  legal  for  parliament  to  legislate  in  any  way  it  saw  fit; 
it  was  legal  for  the  crown  to  exercise  its  prerogative  in  the  veto  of 
laws;  it  was  legal  for  the  royal  governors  to  interfere  in  many 
ways  with  the  growth  of  colonial  self-government;  and  finally  it 
was  legal  for  England  to  impose  the  navigation  laws  on  the  colo¬ 
nies  and  exploit  the  children’s  labor  for  maternal  prosperity. 

•  These  things  had  been  done  until  they  had  all  the  sanction  of 
precedent.  Moreover,  the  Englishman  thought  them  reasonable. 
Of  all  moderns,  he  is  the  least  liable  to  take  others  into  considera¬ 
tion.  .  .  .  Those  who  directed  English  colonial  affairs  in  1763 
knew  little  of  that  better  art  of  government  by  which  the  mind  of 
the  governed  is  as  much  respected  as  the  interests  of  the  gov¬ 
erning  class.15 

The  same  can  be  said  of  earlier  periods,  as  in  the  time  of 
the  “Dominion  of  New  England”  when  all  colonial  interests, 
religious,  commercial,  industrial,  governmental,  were  inter¬ 
preted  through  the  perspective  of  England’s  advantage. 
Hence  the  imposition  of  regulations  that  were  lawful  indeed 
but  ill  suited  to  the  changed  conditions  could  not  but  make 
trouble  for  the  officials  intrusted  with  the  duty  of  enforcing 
them,  namely,  the  royal  Governors.  It  was  a  goad  to  the 
Assembly  to  feel  that  although  a  self-governing  body,  it 
could  make  no  laws  repugnant  to  the  law  of  England.  There 
were  important  and  often  impassable  limitations  to  the 
applicability  of  the  law  of  old  England  to  the  changed  and 

15  J.  S.  Bassett,  A  Short  History  of  the  United  States,  p.  161. 


18 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


constantly  changing  conditions  in  the  New  World.  Witness 
the  insistence  of  colonial  legislatures  upon  exercising  their 
own  law-making  powers;  also  the  immediate  preparation 
in  some  instances  of  an  entirely  new  code  of  law,  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  which  are  not  traceable  to  any  source.  Hence  the 
need  of  particular  legislation,  and  the  determined  struggles 
of  Assemblies  to  obtain  it.  Difficulties  in  this  regard  were 
increased  by  the  wide  divergence  in  the  views  of  the  colonists 
and  those  of  the  controlling  powers  in  both  church  and  state 
in  England.16 

Again,  in  reckoning  the  various  influences  that  made  for 
trouble  in  the  colonial  legislatures,  the  local  feeling  of  loyalty 
in  each  colony  must  be  considered.  Its  importance  can  be 
estimated  by  comparison  with  conditions  in  our  small  towns 
of  the  present  day.  This  factor  alone  would  have  aroused 
no  small  opposition  to  ‘ 4 outsiders”  who  were  forced  upon 
the  colonies  as  Governors. 

Difficulties  were  further  increased  owing  to  the  sort  of 
men  sent  to  fill  the  office  —  men  lacking  in  tact  and  adminis¬ 
trative  ability,  in  sympathy  for  existing  conditions,  and 
even  in  integrity  as  well  as  decency  of  character.  Undoubt¬ 
edly  the  characters  of  royal  Governors  count  for  much  in 
any  study  of  pre-Revolutionary  history.  The  Acts  of  the 
Privy  Council  of  England ,  Colonial  Series,  show  that  com¬ 
plaints  were  pouring  into  the  home  office,  not  only  from 
America,  but  from  every  English  outpost.  “The  voluminous 
complaints  against  Governors  reveal  an  astonishingly  wide 
range  of  delinquency.”  17  This  fact,  however,  is  not  sur¬ 
prising  in  an  age  in  which  political  preferment  was  based 
upon  grounds  ranging  from  friendship  to  bribery  or  even 

16  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  I,  Introd.,  XIII,  XLVII.  Edited  by  Albert 
Stillman  Batchellor. 

17  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  Col.  Ser.,  “The  Unbound  Papers,”  Preface,  VIII— 
XVIII.  Bermuda,  Jamaica,  Antigua,  Leeward  Islands,  the  Barbadoes,  Prince 
Edward  Island,  the  Colonies  of  North  America,  —  all  were  complaining  of  Gov¬ 


ernors. 


INTRODUCTION 


19 


treason.  Many  Governors  looked  forward  to  sojourning  in 
the  colonies  after  the  manner  of  the  nabobs  in  India. 

There  was  little  or  nothing  to  attract  a  man  of  first  rate  abil¬ 
ity,  of  high  integrity,  or  of  statesman-like  quality,  in  the  post  of 
royal  governor  in  the  seventeenth  century.  Owing  to  the  re¬ 
moteness  of  the  colonies,  their  lack  of  culture  and  social  life,  the 
pettiness  of  their  problems,  and  the  proneness  of  their  inhabitants 
to  quarrel  with  any  royal  official  simply  as  such,  the  office  of 
governor  could  mean  only  exile  without  prestige  or  adequate  pay, 
for  any  man  to  whom  ...  a  public  career  was  open  in  England. 
As  for  the  hungry  schools  of  smaller  fish  who  swam  in  their  wake, 
eager  to  pick  up  a  living  in  minor  officialdom,  it  may  be  said  that 
they  were  wont  to  apply  all  too  thoroughly  our  later  American 
maxim,  “to  the  victor  belong  the  spoils.”  They  were  of  the  uni¬ 
versal  type,  transcending  time  or  party,  place  or  race.18 

Governments  have  bin  sometimes  given  as  a  reward  for  Serv¬ 
ices  done  to  the  Crown,  and  with  design  that  such  persons  should 
thereby  make  their  fortunes.  But  they  are  generally  obtained  by 
the  favour  of  great  Men  to  some  of  their  dependents  or  relations, 
and  they  have  bin  sometimes  given  to  persons  who  have  been 
obliged  to  divide  the  profit  of  them  with  those  by  whose  means 
they  were  procured.  The  qualifications  of  such  persons  for  Gov¬ 
ernment  being  seldom  considered.19 

Benjamin  Franklin  described  them  as  “sometimes  men  of 
vicious  character  and  broken  fortunes,  sent  by  a  Minister, 
to  get  them  out  of  the  way.20  The  same  astute  politician, 
in  commentary  on  England’s  administration  of  the  colonies, 
printed  in  pamphleteer  fashion  a  Receipt  for  Diminishing 
a  Great  Empire,  of  which  the  following  is  an  excerpt: 

Remote  provinces  must  have  Governors  and  Judges ,  to  repre¬ 
sent  the  Royal  Person,  and  execute  everywhere  the  delegated 

18  J.  T.  Adams,  The  Founding  of  New  England,  p.  406. 

19  North  Carolina  Records,  II,  154  et  seq.,  especially  158.  Quoted  by  Greene, 
op.  cit.,  p.  47. 

20  Franklin,  Works,  Smyth,  V,  83. 


20 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


parts  of  his  office  and  authority.  Your  ministers  know  that  much 
of  the  strength  of  government  depends  on  the  opinion  of  the 
people;  and  much  of  that  opinion  on  the  choice  of  rulers  placed 
immediately  over  them.  If  you  send  them  wise  and  good  men 
for  governors,  who  study  the  interest  of  the  Colonists,  and  ad¬ 
vance  their  prosperity,  they  will  think  their  King  wise  and  good, 
and  that  he  wishes  the  welfare  of  his  subjects.  If  you  send  them 
learned  and  upright  men  for  Judges,  they  will  think  him  a  lover 
of  justice.  This  may  attach  your  provinces  more  to  his  govern¬ 
ment.  You  are,  therefore,  to  be  careful  whom  you  recommend 
for  those  offices.  If  you  can  find  prodigals,  who  have  ruined  their 
fortunes,  broken  gamesters  or  stockjobbers,  these  may  do  well 
for  Governors ;  for  they  will  probably  be  rapacious,  and  provoke 
the  people  by  their  extortions.  Wrangling  proctors  and  petti¬ 
fogging  lawyers,  too,  are  not  amiss;  for  they  will  be  forever  dis¬ 
puting  and  quarrelling  with  their  little  parliaments.  If  withal 
they  should  be  ignorant,  wrongheaded,  and  insolent,  so  much  the 
better.  Attornies’  clerks  and  Newgate  Solicitors  will  do  for 
Chief  Justices ,  especially  if  they  hold  their  places  during  your 
pleasure;  and  all  will  contradict  to  impress  those  ideas  of  your  gov¬ 
ernment,  that  are  proper  for  a  people  you  would  wish  to  renounce  it. 

To  confirm  these  impressions,  and  strike  them  deeper,  when¬ 
ever  the  injured  come  to  the  Capital  with  complaints  of  mal¬ 
administration,  oppression,  or  injustice,  punish  such  suitors  with 
long  delay,  enormous  expense,  and  a  final  judgment  in  favor  of 
the  oppressor.  This  will  have  an  admirable  effect  every  way. 
The  trouble  of  future  complaints  will  be  prevented,  and  Gov¬ 
ernors  and  Judges  will  be  encouraged  to  farther  acts  of  oppres¬ 
sion  and  injustice;  and  thence  the  people  may  become  more  dis¬ 
affected  and  at  length  desperate. 

When  such  Governors  have  crammed  their  coffers,  and  made 
themselves  so  odious  to  the  people  that  they  can  no  longer  remain 
among  them  with  safety  to  their  persons,  recall  and  reward  them 
with  pensions.  You  may  make  them  baronets  too,  if  that  respecta¬ 
ble  order  should  not  think  fit  to  resent  it.  All  will  contribute  to 
encourage  new  governors  in  the  same  practice,  and  make  the 
Supreme  Government  detestable.21 

21  Benjamin  Franklin,  Works,  Smyth,  VI,  128Jf. 


INTRODUCTION 


21 


In  the  following  quotation  the  colonists  may  be  regarded 
as  speaking  for  themselves  on  this  subject.  It  is  taken  from 
an  address  prepared  by  the  New  York  Assembly,  in  which 
Governors  are  described  as: 

.  .  .  generally  entire  Strangers  to  the  People  they  are  sent  to 
govern;  they  seldom  have  any  Estates  .  .  .  where  they  are  ap¬ 
pointed  Governors,  and  consequently  their  Interest  is  entirely 
distinct  .  .  .  they  seldom  regard  the  Welfare  of  the  People, 
otherwise  than  as  they  can  make  it  subservient  to  their  own  par¬ 
ticular  interest;  and  as  they  know  the  Time  of  the  Continuance 
in  their  Governments  to  be  uncertain,  all  Methods  are  used,  and 
all  Engines  set  to  work  to  raise  Estates  to  themselves  and  there¬ 
fore  should  the  public  Monies  be  left  to  their  Disposition,  what 
can  be  expected  but  the  grossest  mis-application.  .  .  .  ?22 

Some  justification  for  these  sentiments  may  be  inferred 
from  the  strain  in  which  Governor  Bernard  of  Massachusetts 
hastened  to  write,  on  the  death  of  De  Lancey,  Governor  of 
New  York,  to  his  patron  Lord  Barrington: 

...  if  your  Lordship  should  have  any  Friend  apply  for  it,  I 
would  acquaint  him  that  I  believe  that  Government  is  fully  rated 

22  Journal  of  the  Assembly  of  New  York,  II,  267.  July  13,  1749.  The  following 
statement  is  also  apropos  of  this  subject: 

“We  have  a  parliament  and  a  ministry,  some  of  whom,  I  am  apt  to  believe, 
know  that  there  are  plantations  and  governors —  but  not  quite  so  well  as  we  do; 
like  the  frogs  in  the  fable,  the  mad  pranks  of  a  ♦plantation  —  governor  is  sport  to 
them  though  death  to  us,  and  seem  less  concerned  in  our  contests  than  we  are 
between  crows  and  kingbirds.  Governors  are  called  the  King’s  representatives, 
and  when  by  repeated  instances  of  avarice,  cruelty,  and  injustice,  they  extort  com¬ 
plaints  from  the  injured  in  terms  truly  expressive  of  the  violence  committed  and 
injuries  suffered,  it  must  be  termed  a  flying  in  the  face  of  government;  the  King’s 
representative  must  be  treated  with  softness  and  decency  —  etc.” 

Colonel  Morris,  later  first  separate  Governor  of  New  Jersey,  to  James  Alexander, 
Feb.  24,  1734.  Morris  Payers,  Memoir,  p.  25. 

Note.  —  Morris  was  a  bitter  enemy  of  Governor  Cosby,  of  whom  this  was 
written.  The  Governor  had  just  ousted  him  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  New 
York. 

On  this  general  subject,  cf.  also  Channing,  op.  cit.,  II,  245jf. 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


at  £1800  sterling  and  £1000  of  which  must  be  expended  even 
with  economy.23 

The  fact,  also,  that  the  only  legal  method  of  obtaining 
redress  against  irresponsible  Governors  was  attended  with 
greatest  difficulty,  inconvenience,  expense,  and  uncertainty 
would  naturally  lead  the  Assemblies,  not  only  to  take  into 
their  own  hands  the  method  of  restraint,  but  also  to  see  to 
it  that  Governors  were  rendered  so  dependent  upon  the 
legislature  that  oppression  would  be  unlikely,  if  not  altogether 
impossible.  This  single  legal  method  was  provided  by  act  of 
Parliament  in  1700,  determining  that  in  cases  of  criminal 
misconduct  on  the  part  of  Governors  the  court  of  first 
instance  was  the  King’s  bench.24  The  difficulties  attendant 
upon  this  method  are  obvious.  Practically  there  was  no 
means  of  redress. 

Andrew  Hamilton,  in  his  famous  speech  at  the  Zenger 
trial,  pleading  for  free  speech  as  the  only  effective  check  on 
the  maladministration  of  Governors,  declared : 

...  it  is  true  they  are  obliged  to  answer  a  suit  in  the  King’s 
courts  at  Westminster,  for  a  wrong  done  to  any  person  here: 
But  do  we  not  know  how  impracticable  this  is  to  most  men  among 
us,  to  leave  their  families,  and  carry  evidences  to  Great  Britain 
and  at  a  great,  nay,  a  far  greater  expense  than  almost  any  of  us 
are  able  to  bear  .  .  .?  But  when  the  oppression  is  general ,  there  is 
no  remedy  even  that  way.25 

In  fact,  in  all  colonial  history  there  are  only  two  instances 
of  prosecution  of  Governors  by  this  method;  namely,  that 
against  Bellomont  of  New  Y7ork  for  false  imprisonment, 

23  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Aug.  9,  1760,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 

p.  18. 

24  Greene,  op.  cit.,  pp.  196jf. 

26  Howell,  State  Trials,  XVII,  707.  Cited  by  Greene,  op.  cit.,  p.  198.  (Italics 
are  mine.) 


INTRODUCTION 


23 


and  against  Phips  of  Massachusetts  for  illegal  interference 
with  the  collector  of  customs.26 

Aggression  from  the  Assemblies  might  also  be  expected 
because  of  the  fact  that  many  oppressions  were  “not  done 
in  a  Judicial  way,”  there  being  no  records  of  proceedings, 
and  hence  they  “could  not  be  proved  so  fully  before  the 
King.”  Thus  injured  parties  “meet  with  insupportable 
difficulties,  and  have  seldom  been  relieved  in  their  com¬ 
plaints.”  27 

Moreover,  the  Governors’  instructions,  by  which  England 
gave  orders  to  insist  on  specified  regulations  or  concessions, 
thereby  practically  imposing  law  on  a  self-governing  body, 
caused  considerable  opposition  from  Assemblies.  Their 
attitude  is  seen  in  the  following  statement  from  Governor 
Belcher  of  Massachusetts  to  the  Lords  of  Trade: 

If  I  may  say  to  your  Lordships  my  own  sentiments  the  House 
of  Representatives  here  seem  to  have  an  aversion  even  to  a  men¬ 
tion  of  the  King’s  instructions.28 

The  colonial  attitude  toward  these  instructions  was  an 
index  fairly  accurate  of  the  feeling  toward  the  individuals 
and  the  system  that  imposed  them.  This  is  further  verified 
in  one  of  the  suggestions  made  by  Lexington  to  a  representa¬ 
tive  in  1772: 

Our  Charter  knows  no  such  thing  as  Instructions  to  Governors; 
and  yet,  what  have  not  Instructions  done  to  vex  this  people ! 29 

In  addition  to  these  causes  of  discord  between  royal 
Governors  and  their  Assemblies  was  the  fact  that  Governors 
everywhere  were  overstepping  the  limits  of  their  authority 

26  Greene,  op.  oil.,  p.  197. 

27  North  Carolina  Records,  II,  161jf.  Cited  by  Greene,  op.  cit.,  p.  197. 

28  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  C,  VI,  287. 

29  Revolutionary  Correspondence,  Bancroft  Collection,  I,  497. 


24 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


and  were  exercising  functions  not  usually  considered  to  be 
within  the  sphere  of  the  executive  department.30 

It  would  be  incorrect,  however,  to  infer  that  among  the 
royal  Governors  there  could  be  found  no  honorable  or  able 
men.  Professor  E.  B.  Greene,  in  his  exhaustive  study  The 
Provincial  Governor ,  makes  in  this  regard  a  summary,  which 
in  its  inferences  is  especially  significant: 

.  .  .  the  names  of  Spotswood  of  Virginia,  Sharpe  of  Maryland, 
Morris  of  New  Jersey,  and  Hutchinson  of  Massachusetts  suffice 
to  show  that  some  provincial  governors  were  neither  unscrupu¬ 
lous  nor  inefficient.  There  were  others,  too,  like  Burnet  of  New 
York  and  Massachusetts,  who  showed  an  honorable  willingness 
to  make  sacrifices  for  what  they  conceived  to  be  for  the  public 
interest.31 

The  names  of  Hunter  and  Colden  of  New  York,  of  the 
Wentworths  of  New  Hampshire,  might  also  be  added  to  this 
list.  On  this  topic  even  Professor  Channing  says:  “Of 
course,  once  in  a  while  a  man  of  ability  was  appointed;” 
but  “in  a  few  instances  where  this  wTas  the  case,  there  was 
always  some  peculiar  circumstance  which  made  it  impossible 
for  him  to  accomplish  much  in  the  way  of  upbuilding  the 
royal  power.”  32  Governors  Hutchinson  and  John  Went¬ 
worth  are  illustrations. 

The  House  Journals  for  the  colonies  under  discussion  in 
this  work  abound  with  protestations  of  profoundest  loyalty 
to  the  King  and  to  the  mother  country.  Nevertheless  the 
loyalty  of  the  colonists  was  early  tried  and  in  many  ways 
found  wanting.  For  instance,  in  the  French  and  Indian 
wars  the  patriotic  colonists  were  not  above  sending  to  the 
enemy  information,  ammunition,  and  general  supplies.  Evi- 

30  Greene,  op.  cit.,  p.  36. 

31  The  Provincial  Governor ,  p.  49. 

32  Channing,  op.  cit.,  II,  245. 


INTRODUCTION 


25 


dence  of  this  nature  must  form  a  part  of  any  setting  in  which 
struggles  against  the  home  government  are  to  have  the  place 
of  prominence.  Nor  was  the  delinquency  confined  to  an 
isolated  case  or  to  an  individual.  Had  it  been  so,  we  should 
hardly  have  from  the  King  repeated  instructions  to  Governors 
to  use  every  effort  to  prevent  this  traitorous  communication 
and  trade.33 

It  is  but  just  also  that  the  investigator  of  this  field  should 
divest  himself  of  present  day  political  concepts  or  aftermaths, 
and  take  his  stand  in  the  actual  period  under  discussion; 
that  is,  in  the  case  of  New  Hampshire,  for  instance,  going 
back  to  1679  and  working  forward,  following  events  as  they 
happened  rather  than  looking  backward  from  1923  and 
making  comparisons  from  twentieth  century  standards. 
There  exists  a  conviction,  non-conscious,  perhaps,  but  quite 
universal,  that  the  colonists  were  at  all  times  justified  in 
striving  to  throw  off  England’s  control.  This  is  not  so. 
There  was  no  more  reason  for  the  colonist  of  Massachusetts 
or  of  New  York  to  consider  himself  entirely  independent  of 
English  control  than  there  was  for  the  ‘‘forty-niners”  to  set 
up  an  independent  state  in  California.  It  is  inconsistent  to 
claim  that  the  authority  of  Congress  in  the  twentieth  century 
should  extend  to  the  territories,  but  that  the  authority  of 
Parliament  in  the  seventeenth  should  not  have  crossed  the 
Channel  or  spanned  the  Atlantic.  Administrative  regula¬ 
tions  made  by  England  in  that  day  and  for  the  colonies  as 
such  should  not  be  compared  with  those  suited  to  the  inde¬ 
pendent  states  into  which  the  revolting  colonies  suddenly 
changed.  If  we  must  judge  the  provisions  for  colonial  gov¬ 
ernments  by  later  American  models,  then  we  should  base 
our  comparison  upon  regulations  made  by  us  as  a  “mother 
country”  for  our  own  territories  and  dependencies.  These 

33  Instructions  to  Governor  Burnet  of  Massachusetts,  March  28,  1728,  Article 
G5,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soe.,  pp.  1127Jf.  P.  R.  O.,  Colonial  Office,  Class  5,  Vol.  910, 
pp.  G7-109;  cf.  also  instructions,  ibid.,  pp.  1197/f.,  1529jf. 


26 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


reproduce  in  striking  degree  the  royal  governments  of  the 
period  we  are  about  to  consider.34  In  fact,  the  governmental 
idea  of  the  colonial  period  had  actually  reached  the  status 
of  the  second  stage  provided  in  our  own  Ordinance  of  1787 
for  the  government  of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  River 
Ohio.  If  England,  and  not  America,  had  contributed  to 
political  science  the  third  stage  therein  provided,  by  ad¬ 
mitting  on  certain  condition  to  the  colony  or  territory  equal 
rights  with  the  mother  state,  then  the  Ordinance  as  such 
might  never  have  been  framed,  and  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  never  have  been  written. 

A  reference  to  the  more  important  questions  dividing 
Governors  and  their  Assemblies  may  aid  in  better  under¬ 
standing  the  detailed  discussion  that  is  to  follow  concerning 
the  causes  and  progress  of  those  disputes. 

Foremost,  most  frequent,  and  in  its  effect  most  important, 
was  the  attempt  of  Assemblies  to  gain  complete  control  of 
provincial  funds.  This  control,  first  desired  as  protection 
against  fraudulent  practices,  later  became  the  principal 
means  to  obtain  nearly  all  political  desiderata.  By  specific 
appropriations,  and  later  by  exercising  the  right  to  verify 
alleged  expenditures,  the  Assembly  was  enabled  effectually 
to  hamper  the  Governor,  and  even  to  venture  far  into  the 
executive  field  by  encroachments  on  his  military  and  ap¬ 
pointive  powers.  When  money  was  appropriated  for  the 
support  of  a  given  number  of  men  to  be  employed  at  specified 
points,  and  when  salaries  were  granted,  not  to  offices,  but  to 

34  Note  that  the  Governor  of  our  territories  is  appointed  by  the  President,  and 
removable  by  him,  just  as  in  the  Massachusetts  charter  of  1691,  in  which  the 
Governor  was  appointed  by  and  subject  to  removal  by  the  Crown.  In  our  terri¬ 
tories  the  laws  are  subject  to  the  double  veto  so  strongly  objected  to  in  the  colonies; 
namely,  that  of  the  Governor  and  of  the  “home  government.”  In  some  cases  all 
these  laws  were  made  under  conditions  of  approval  by  Congress.  And  the  great 
Nemesis,  taxation  without  representation,  the  shibboleth  of  the  Revolution,  exists 
in  practically  the  same  degree  in  our  dependencies  as  it  did  in  the  colonies.  In 
fact,  to  Alaska,  in  1884,  the  Assembly,  the  great  “  life-saver  ”  to  the  colonies,  was 
specifically  prohibited.  Cf.  J.  T.  Adams,  op.  cit.,  pp.  448jf. 


INTRODUCTION 


27 


individuals  designated  for  them,  then  the  Assembly  was 
surely  making  good  use  of  its  system.  It  is  evident,  too, 
that  no  little  pressure  could  be  brought  to  bear  by  decreasing 
or  by  withholding  the  Governor’s  salary.  In  this  respect 
the  home  government  usually  attempted  to  come  to  the 
Governor’s  rescue  by  issuing,  together  with  his  commission, 
instructions  requiring  a  fixed  and  permanent  grant  for  his 
support,  sometimes  stipulating  the  amount  of  salary  to  be 
paid.  The  opposition  to  these  instructions  forms  in  large 
part  the  story  of  the  controversies  and  conflicts  with  the 
Governors,  and  should  have  a  place  in  any  narrative  dealing 
with  the  remote  causes  of  the  American  Revolution. 

In  Massachusetts  there  came  a  peculiar  turn  to  this  salary 
controversy.  After  years  of  fruitless  pleading,  the  home 
government  finally  decided  to  relieve  the  embarrassment  of 
the  Governor  and  to  make  him  independent  of  the  lower 
House  by  assuming  the  payment  of  his  salary.  Thereupon 
the  General  Court  raised  a  storm  of  protest,  and,  so  far  from 
refusing  to  grant  to  the  Governor  his  salary,  insisted  that 
he  should  accept  it,  claiming  that  he  had  not  the  right  to 
accept  support  from  any  other  source. 

Another  cause  of  conflict  arose  in  the  Assembly’s  struggle 
for  a  share  in  the  establishment  of  equity  courts.  The  Gov¬ 
ernor  himself  was  the  court  —  sometimes  alone,  sometimes 
with  the  Council.  His  right  to  erect  such  courts  by  ordinance 
was  universally  contested.  The  reasons  can  be  seen  in  the 
following  excerpt  from  Douglas : 

It  is  said  that  a  Governor,  and  such  of  the  Council  as  he  sees 
fit  to  consult  with,  dispense  with  such  Provincial  Laws  as  are 
troublesome,  or  stand  in  their  Way  in  Procedures  of  the  Court  of 
Equity,  so  called.35 

36  Summary  of  the  First  Planting  of  the  British  Settlement  in  North  America, 
II,  33,  49.  Quoted  by  Greene,  op.  cit.,  p.  141. 


28 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


A  further  cause  of  controversy,  the  only  one  expressly 
mentioned  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  was  the 
practice  of  frequent  prorogations  at  the  will  or  the  whim  of 
the  Governor. 

We  sit  upon  our  own  adjournments,  when  we  please,  and  as 
long  as  we  think  necessary;  and  we  are  not  apt  to  be  sent  a  pack¬ 
ing,  in  the  middle  of  a  debate,  and  disabled  from  representing 
our  just  grievances  .  .  .  which  has  often  been  the  fate  of  As¬ 
semblies  in  other  places.36 

Frequent  dissolutions  for  the  purpose  of  getting  rid  of 
aggressive  Assemblies,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  practice 
of  keeping  pliant  Assemblies  in  existence  for  long  terms, 
led  to  serious  trouble.  Practically  every  Assembly  attempted 
to  pass  laws  fixing  the  time  of  new  elections. 

There  were  conflicts  also  over  the  Governor’s  attempt  to 
limit  paper  money  issues;  over  his  corrupt  practices  in  elec¬ 
tions  to  the  House,  his  interference  with  House  membership 
and  procedure,  refusal  to  approve  choice  of  speaker,  etc. 
In  a  word,  there  were  struggles  over  some  of  the  very  powers 
that  were  then  being  slowly  wrested  by  Parliament  from  the 
King.  Perhaps  dimly  the  Assemblies  began  to  realize  that 
the  King  was  no  longer  to  exercise  the  right  of  veto  or  of 
proroguing  Parliament.  It  may  be,  too,  that  they  divined 
the  transfer  of  exercise  of  the  executive  authority  from  the 
King  to  the  Cabinet. 

The  above  reference  to  the  outstanding  subjects  of  dis¬ 
pute  is  necessary  in  order  properly  to  complete  this  general 
introduction,  because  the  various  struggles  against  Gov¬ 
ernors  were  by  no  means  isolated  facts  in  colonial  history. 
Politically  speaking  there  were  set  in  motion  by  these  dis¬ 
cords  sympathetic  vibrations,  strong  ones,  through  which 
the  intensity  of  feeling  in  one  colony  was  affected  by  that 

36  Speech  of  Andrew  Hamilton,  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  II,  237.  Cited 
by  Greene,  ibid.,  p.  153. 


INTRODUCTION 


29 


of  its  neighbor.  In  time  all  became  tuned  to  the  common 
note  that  eventually  resounded  in  the  Declaration  of  In¬ 
dependence.  As  one  evidence  of  this  non-isolation,  we  have 
the  testimony  of  two  of  the  royal  Governors.  Lewis  Morris 
of  New  Jersey  wrote: 

[The  representatives]  are  gen’lly  so  fond  of  the  example  of  the 
parliament  of  1641,  &  that  of  their  neighbours  in  Pensilvania  and 
New  England,  that  until  some  measures  are  taken  in  England 
to  reduce  them  to  Propper  limits,  I  suspect  they  will  not  mend 
much.37 

Belcher  of  Massachusetts  also  complained  that: 

The  forts  in  all  the  plantations  do  at  this  day  lye  in  a  sad  ruin¬ 
ous  condition,  especially  in  all  the  West  India  Islands,  &  this  is 
no  fault  of  the  Governours,  but  of  the  Assemblies  who  will  raise 
no  money  to  repair  &  support  ’em.38 

These  conflicts  between  Assemblies  and  Governors  usually 
resulted  in  encroachments  on  the  Governor’s  powers.  In 
theory  the  proper  term,  as  far  as  the  legal  constitution  of 
the  colony  was  concerned,  would  be  encroachments.  But 
in  fact ,  the  political  systems  in  the  colonies  were  following 
the  course  of  an  evolution  toward  democracy ,  and  away 
from  the  monarchical  idea.  This  was  due  to  many  causes,  — 
the  historical  background;  the  enjoyment  of  civil  freedom; 
frontier  influences  and  consequent  philosophy  of  initiative 
and  independence;  peculiar  environment  and  special  needs 
and  exceptions  in  regard  to  law;  the  Assemblies’  assumed 
role  as  champion  protector  of  liberty;  England’s  misunder¬ 
standing  of  colonial  problems;  distance  in  time,  space, 
sympathies,  religion,  even  in  politics,  from  the  parent  state; 

37  Morris  Papers,  1743,  p.  162. 

38  Belcher  to  Richard  Partridge,  Oct.  22,  1739.  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist. 
Soc.  Coll.,  Series  6,  VI,  218;  cf.  also  Greene,  op.  cit.,  pp.  178jf.  George  Chal¬ 
mers,  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Revolt  of  the  American  Colonies,  II,  16. 


30 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  strong  feeling  of  local  and  provincial  loyalty;  the  sort 
of  men  sent  to  govern;  and  more  important  than  any  was 
perhaps  the  consequences  of  commercial  monopoly.  This, 
however,  is  not  the  present  theme. 

Add  to  these  things  the  significant  fact  that  England  had 
herself  sown  the  germ  of  this  democratic  spirit  by  estab¬ 
lishing  the  representative  Assembly.  When  even  a  slight 
pulse  of  life  is  once  felt,  democracy  tends  to  make  desperate 
efforts  for  existence  and  perfection.  Even  Chalmers,  as  early 
as  the  end  of  Queen  Anne’s  reign,  bears  witness  to  this, 
saying  of  the  New  York  Government  that  it  “was  really 
changed;  from  being  monarchical,  it  had  become  demo- 
cratical;”  and  he  might  have  added  that  it  became  so 
through  a  natural,  necessary  evolution.  It  is  unnatural  for 
the  progenitor  to  produce  an  offspring  essentially  unlike 
itself.  England,  the  mother  country,  had  attained  to  the 
rights  expressed  in  Magna  Charta  and  in  the  unwritten 
constitution  of  democracy.  She  conceived,  and  after  much 
labor  another  embryonic  democracy,  weak  and  at  first  al¬ 
most  helpless,  appeared.  But  it  survived.  All  the  parent’s 
mistaken  efforts  to  impede  its  growth  and  development  were 
unavailing.  Perhaps,  had  the  efforts  been  more  decisive 
and  strong,  the  trend  toward  independence  would  have 
been  checked,  but  probably  only  for  a  time. 

It  should  be  noted,  too,  that  the  struggle  for  freedom  to 
develop  was  in  progress  long  before  the  War  of  Independ¬ 
ence.  Theories  and  forces  of  opposition  gained  strength 
gradually.  And  nowhere  can  the  origins  and  progress  of 
these  theories  and  forces  be  examined  to  better  advantage 
than  in  the  relations  in  colonial  legislatures  between  the 
agents  of  the  restraining  parent  and  the  representatives  of 
the  refractory  child. 

“Rightly  then  to  understand  the  deeper  forces  which  pro¬ 
duced  the  war  of  independence,  one  must  understand  the 
gradual  growth  of  that  sense  of  divergent  interests  without 


INTRODUCTION 


31 


which  all  the  political  agitation  of  Samuel  Adams,  the  elo¬ 
quence  of  Patrick  Henry,  and  even  a  few  injudicious  meas¬ 
ures  of  British  statesmen  from  1760  to  1774  could  hardly 
have  led  to  revolution.  Nowhere  can  this  gradually  awaken¬ 
ing  consciousness  of  divergences,  so  far  as  it  reveals  itself 
prior  to  what  is  commonly  called  the  revolutionary  era,  be 
better  studied  than  in  the  conflicts  between  the  provincial 
governor  and  the  provincial  assembly.”39 

39  Greene,  oy.  tit.,  concluding  paragraph. 


Part  I 


MASSACHUSETTS 


CHAPTER  I 

EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION,  1644-1730 

The  representatives  in  Massachusetts  Bay  met  for  the 
first  time  as  a  separate  body  in  1644.1  The  increasing  desire 
for  independence  in  the  colony  eventually  led  to  the  policy 
under  James  II  of  more  effectual  control.  Hence  the  in¬ 
structions  for  stricter  enforcement  of  the  Acts  of  Trade  and 
Navigation,  also,  in  1686,  the  abolition  of  the  lower  House 
and  the  appointment  of  Joseph  Dudley  as  President  of  New 
England.2  Dudley  was  succeeded  in  the  same  year  by  Sir 
Edmund  Andros  as  Governor  of  the  Dominion  of  New  Eng¬ 
land,  with  semi-royal  powers  that  were  later  extended  over 
practically  the  whole  northern  part  of  British  America.3 

1  Prior  to  1634,  laws  were  made  by  Governor  and  “Council.”  Protests,  even 
at  that  early  date,  against  taxation  without  representation  resulted  in  the  sending 
of  three  deputies  from  each  of  the  eight  towns  in  the  colony.  It  was  not,  however, 
until  1644  that  these  sat  as  a  separate  House.  Winthrop,  History  of  New  Eng¬ 
land,  I,  1 52/f. 

2  Transcripts  of  Royal  Instructions  to  Governors  of  Massachusetts  (including  also 
many  letters  from  the  Lords  of  Trade  and  the  Board  of  Trade),  Colonial  Society  of 
Massachusetts,  now  deposited  in  the  Library  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Boston,  Mass.  Cf.  documents  dated  April  10,  June  26  and  Aug.  10,  1685, 
pp.  158,  150,  153.  Copied  from  P.  R.  0.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  904,  pp.  152,  153,  145-148, 
151-156;  cf.  also  ibid.,  pp.  166-170,  171,  172. 

These  will  hereafter  be  cited  as  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  with  reference  also  to  the 
location  in  the  British  Museum. 

3  Cf.  Commission  of  Andros,  Sept.  12,  1686,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  178-191. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  904,  pp.  306-308;  also  ibid.,  p.  239.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  389, 
Vol.  9,  p.  467. 


34 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


The  commission  of  Andros  was,  from  the  colonial  point  of 
view,  an  arbitrary  and  far-reaching  encroachment  on  the 
rights  of  local  self-government.  In  him,  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  his  Council,  of  whom  seven  ordinarily  constituted 
a  quorum,  was  vested  the  power  to  make  laws,  levy  taxes, 
appoint  judges,  justices,  and  sheriffs,  to  establish  military 
service  and  so  on.  The  only  positive  limitation  on  his  powers 
was  the  prohibition  against  levying  war.4  Under  this  sys¬ 
tem  the  administration  is  considered  by  some  to  have  been 
an  “illegal  Despotism.”5  According  to  Thomas  Hutchin¬ 
son,  the  early  loyalist  historian  of  Massachusetts,  “Nero 
concealed  his  tyrannical  disposition  more  years,  than  Sir 
Edmund  and  creatures  did  months.”6  But  Andros  has  not 
always  received  justice  from  Massachusetts  historians.  By 
many  he  is  now  regarded  as  of  sterling  personal  qualities, 
loyal  and  sincere,  though  not  always  acting  with  discretion.7 
The  reputed  odium  is  a  little  subdued  when  it  is  remembered 
that  the  very  party  that  opposed  him  “fought  to  the  end  to 
perpetuate  religious  intolerance,  and  the  entrenched  privi¬ 
lege  of  a  minority  to  tax  an  unenfranchised  majority  four 
times  as  numerous,  and  for  the  right  to  concentrate  all 
political  power  in  the  hands  of  one  religious  sect.”8 

4  Cf.  instructions  to  Andros,  April  16,  1688,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.  P.  R.  O., 
C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  855,  p.  90;  and  389,  Vol.  9,  p.  468. 

5  Edward  Channing,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  180. 

6  History  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  355. 

7  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  I,  Introd.,  XCIII.  Prince  Society,  Publications,  V, 
Andros  Tracts,  I,  XXCII.  N.  Y.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  I,  599. 

Of  recent  historians.  Professor  Edward  Channing  is  among  those  most  opposed 
to  Andros.  Cf.  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  180/f.;  also  Osgood,  American 
Colonies,  III,  394ff. 

The  feeling  against  Andros  in  Boston  went  even  so  far  as  the  sending  to  the 
hostile  Indians  in  Maine  of  a  forty-two  ton  vessel,  with  powder,  shot  and  food,  in 
order  to  undo  Andros’  work.  These  Indian  troubles  were  also  made  the  basis  of  a 
rumor  that  Andros  intended  to  turn  over  the  colonies  to  France  and  to  intro¬ 
duce  detested  Popery.  James  Truslow  Adams,  The  Founding  of  New  England, 
p.  427. 

8  J.  T.  Adams,  op.  cit.,  p.  395. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


35 


When  Andros,  after  an  imprisonment  of  ten  months  in 
Boston,  was  finally,  through  the  King’s  order,  liberated  and 
returned  to  England,  Increase  Mather  and  two  others, 
alleging  that  they  were  appointed  to  act  for  the  people  of 
Massachusetts  against  the  rejected  Governor-General,  ap¬ 
peared  in  a  hearing  before  the  Lords  of  the  Committee  for 
Trade  and  Plantations.  But  the  charges,  which  failed  of 
proof,  were  accordingly  dismissed  by  the  Lords  with  the 
report:  ‘‘No  Person  could  be  then  found  or  was  named  unto 
us  upon  our  Inquiry,  to  signe  or  owne  the  same.” 9 

By  the  fall  of  Andros,  however,  James  the  Second’s 
Dominion  of  New  England  was  shattered.  Thereafter 
Massachusetts  set  out  to  govern  itself  and  miserably  failed. 
“Every  man  is  a  governor,”  wrote  some  one  from  Boston. 
There  was  military,  financial,  economic,  and  administrative 
wreck,10  and  this  in  the  face  of  a  tradition  that  endows  the 
Anglo-Saxon  with  an  “innate”  aptitude  and  expertness  in 
political  affairs.  Of  this  period,  a  recent  author  has  written: 

In  the  blue  haze  of  that  incense  in  honor  of  the  colonial  New 
Englanders,  lighted  by  themselves  and  tended  by  their  descend¬ 
ants,  we  are  apt,  a  little  absurdly  sometimes,  to  lose  sight  of  coarse 
fundamentals.  The  average  man  or  boy  in  the  New  England  of 
this  period  probably  looked  upon  the  theory  that  the  main  end 
of  the  colony’s  existence  was  to  make  the  world  safe  for  the  Con¬ 
gregational  church,  in  very  much  the  same  way  in  which  those  of 
us  who  happened  to  be  in  France  lately  found  that  the  average 
“doughboy”  regarded  his  main  end  there  to  be  making  the  world 
safe  for  democracy;  .  .  .  and  so  long  as  the  average  man  could 
catch  cod,  sell  whiskey  to  the  Indians,  raise  crops  on  land  he  felt 
was  his  own,  or  stand  at  his  little  shop  counter,  he  did  not  much 
care  —  much  as,  by  way  of  conversation,  he  might  talk  —  about 
the  governor  in  Boston,  or  the  king  in  England,  but  let  him  be- 

9  Report  of  the  Lords,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  282,  283.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  0.,  5, 
Vol.  905,  pp.  188,  189. 

10  Ibid.,  pp.  443/f. 


36 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


lieve  that  either  was  threatening  his  God-given  right  to  accumulate 
pine-tree  shillings,  and  there  would  be  trouble.11 

In  October,  1691,  in  spite  of  the  vehement  protests,  efforts, 
intrigues,  false  representations,  bribes,  and  even  threats  of 
revolt  from  the  Reverend  Mather  and  his  theocratic  oligarchy, 
a  new  charter  placed  the  colony  abreast  of  what  was  con¬ 
sidered  to  be  the  most  liberal  thought  of  the  day.  Theoc¬ 
racy  was  legally  destroyed;  toleration,  except  to  Catholics, 
was  established;  every  resident  with  the  moderate  property 
requirement  had  a  voice  in  the  government;  and  Massa¬ 
chusetts  became  a  royal  province,  with  a  Governor  appointed 
by  the  King,  a  House  of  Representatives  chosen  by  the 
people,  and,  as  a  novel  feature,  a  Council  nominated  by  the 
House  and  confirmed  by  the  Governor.12 

The  position  of  a  Crown  appointee  as  Governor  of  a 
people  who  preferred  to  elect  their  own  executive  gave  little 
prospect  of  harmonious  relations  with  the  people’s  repre¬ 
sentatives.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  for  seventy  years  conflicts 
were  almost  incessant,  down  to  the  final  break  in  1776. 

Sir  William  Phips,  the  first  royal  Governor  of  Massachu¬ 
setts,  was  a  compromise  appointee.13  To  Increase  Mather, 

11  J.  T.  Adams,  op.  cit.,  p.  436. 

12  J.  T.  Adams,  op.  cit.,  pp.  445-447;  also  Chaining,  op.  cit.,  II,  284 ff.  Charter 
is  in  Publications  of  Col.  Soc.,  Mass.,  II,  Iff. 

13  William  Phips,  one  of  26  children,  was  a  shepherd  until  eighteen  years  of  age; 
then  a  ship-carpenter,  seaman,  commander  of  a  frigate  in  search  of  Spanish  treas¬ 
ure  ships;  successful  on  second  expedition,  bringing  home  some  £300,000,  of  which 
his  share  was  £16,000.  For  this  exploit  he  was  knighted.  “His  education  was  very 
low,”  —  also  his  fortune.  He  was  “of  a  hasty  temper  and  being  a  stout  man,  he 
would  use  his  cane  and  fist  after  he  was  governor.”  He  was  “  much  better  fitted 
to  manage  the  crew  of  a  man-of-war  than  to  sit  at  the  helm  of  the  ship  of  state.” 
Cf.  Hutchinson,  op.  cit.,  pp.  396/.,  notes;  cf.  also  the  Life  of  Phips,  pp.  4 ff.,  cited 
in  footnote  15,  following. 

His  actual  administration  began  May  16,  1692.  Cf.  List  of  Commissions,  In¬ 
structions  and  Additional  Instructions  to  the  Royal  Governor  and  Others  in  America, 
compiled  by  C.  M.  Andrews,  and  printed  in  Annual  Report  of  the  American  His¬ 
torical  Association,  1911,  I,  393 ff. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


37 


leader  of  the  Puritan  oligarchy  that  was  overthrown  by  the 
new  charter,  was  left,  as  a  measure  of  conciliation,  the  nomi¬ 
nation.  And  Mather  aided  in  procuring  the  appointment 
for  his  recent  neophyte,  Sir  William. 

We  have  not  now  our  former  Charter,  but  we  have  a  better  in 
the  Room  of  it.  One  which  much  better  suits  our  Circumstances. 
And  instead  of  my  being  made  a  sacrifice  to  wicked  Rulers ,  all 
the  Councellors  of  the  Province  are  of  my  own  Father’s  Nomina¬ 
tion;  and  my  Father-in-law ,  with  several  related  unto  mee,  and 
several  Brethren  of  my  own  Church  are  among  them.  The  Gov¬ 
ernor  of  the  Province  is  not  my  Enemy,  but  one  whom  I  baptized, 
namely  Sir  William  Phips,  and  one  of  my  own  Flock,  and  one  of 
my  dearest  Friends.14 

On  the  other  hand,  as  a  native,  a  conspicuous  local  leader 
during  the  Indian  troubles,  and  one  but  lately  knighted  for 
daring  achievements,  Phips  would  probably  be  more  accept¬ 
able  than  a  stranger,  and  more  likely  to  assuage  the  dis¬ 
satisfaction  consequent  upon  the  imposition  of  the  new 
charter.  His  administration,  however,  due  partly  to  his  own 
deficiencies  and  partly  to  the  unavoidable  embarrassments 
of  the  political  situation,  was  rife  in  conflict,  ending  in  his 
recall  to  England  to  answer  charges  against  him.15 

At  the  first  session,  June  8,  1692,  the  Governor’s  opening 
address  was  at  once  conciliatory  and  liberal.  But  peace 
ended  when  the  pressure  of  his  arbitrary  measures  began  to 
be  felt.  Then  the  political  leaders,  in  order  to  protect  their 
rights  and  to  prevent  further  encroachment,  determined 
that  the  Governor,  as  well  as  other  royal  officials,  must  be 
made  dependent  in  some  manner  upon  the  General  Court. 
The  pressure  was  brought  to  bear  through  the  salaries,  which, 
in  spite  of  Sir  William’s  repeated  requests  for  a  settled 

14  Diary  of  Cotton  Mather,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  7,  VII,  148;  cf.  also 
Mather’s  Magnolia,  I,  Book  II,  Appendix,  p.  201. 

15  Life  of  His  Excellency,  Sir  William  Phips,  by  Cotton  Mather,  p.  101,  and 
passim. 


38 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


support,  were  made  indefinite  in  amount  and  in  time  of  pay¬ 
ment,  —  though  in  practice  payments  became  annual. 
Phips  added  to  his  difficulties  by  refusing  to  confirm  to  the 
Couneillorship  Elijah  Cooke,  the  leader  of  the  popular 
party,  who  when  in  England  had  opposed  his  appointment 
as  Governor.  It  was  largely  Cooke’s  instigations  that  stirred 
up  this  salary  controversy,  destined  to  continue  for  nearly 
half  a  century.16 

Tactless  measures,  such  as  his  command  to  the  Assembly 
to  “Go  chuse  a  new  Speaker,”  because  that  official  had 
ordered,  without  consulting  the  Governor,  an  adjournment 
over  a  week  end,  soon  started  an  agitation  for  the  removal 
of  Phips.  He  was  accused  also  before  the  Privy  Council  of 
securing  for  his  own  use  quantities  of  forfeited  illegal  imports ; 
of  hindering  the  Collector  by  forbidding  captains  to  clear 
with  him,  and  appointing  a  naval  officer  of  his  own  choosing 
for  the  purpose;  of  preventing  complaint  to  the  King  from 
a  frigate  captain  by  imprisoning  the  same  and  by  forcibly 
appropriating  his  money  and  clothes;  of  condemning  a 
captured  French  ship  as  prize  to  the  King,  yet  sending  no 
report  thereon;  of  impressing  from  private  owners  guns  and 
stores  for  other  captured  ships,  without  compensation,  and 
without  reserving  any  portion  to  the  King.  As  a  result  of 
these  and  of  other  complaints,  in  large  part  expressed  in 
private  letters  to  England,  Phips  was  finally  ordered  home 
to  answer  the  charges.17 

The  fact  that  the  House  drew  up  a  petition  to  the  King 
“humbly  praying  .  .  .  that  the  Governor  might  not  be 
moved,”  is  not  nearly  so  significant  as  it  may  appear.  The 

16  J.  S.  Barry,  History  of  Massachusetts,  II,  57.  Channing,  op.  cit.,  II,  287. 

17  Letter  from  the  King  to  Sir  William  Phips,  Feb.  15,  1693-1694,  Transcripts, 
Col.  Soc.,  pp.  318-322.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  858,  No.  16. 

Phips  laid  hands  on  one  collector;  and  meeting  a  certain  “Captain  Short  in 
the  street,  warm  words  passed,  and  at  length  the  governor  made  use  of  his  cane 
and  broke  Short’s  head;  not  content  with  this,  he  committed  him  to  prison.” 
Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  77. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


39 


vote  of  fifty  members  on  the  subject  showed  a  bare  majority 
of  one  in  favor  of  the  petition.  In  order  to  offset  the  influence 
of  the  members  from  Boston,  most  of  whom  were  against 
the  petition,  the  Phips  party  inserted  in  a  bill  then  pending 
a  clause  preventing  any  town  from  being  represented  other 
than  by  resident  freeholders.  This  was  designed  to  rule  out 
all  votes  of  town  representatives  who  resided  in  Boston. 
Nevertheless,  by  one  vote,  the  bill  was  lost.  Sir  William 
thereupon  “  rushed  into  the  house  of  commons  and  drove 
out  the  non-residents.”18 

In  obedience  to  the  King’s  summons,  Governor  Phips 
sailed  for  England  in  November,  1694.  During  the  next 
five  years,  under  the  rule  of  the  Lieutenant-Governor, 
William  Stoughton,  there  were  no  conflicts,  although  the 
Assembly  could  not  have  been  placed  in  amiable  mood  at 
receiving,  in  August,  1695,  intelligence  of  the  disallowance 
of  fifteen  acts  passed  shortly  after  the  first  functioning  of 
the  new  charter.  These  measures  purported  to  set  forth 
“General  Privileges,”  providing  for  continuation  of  local 
laws,  erection  of  naval  office,  courts  of  justice,  etc.19  The 
fact  of  the  existence  of  harmonious  relations  with  Stoughton 
also  seems  evident  in  the  Assembly’s  repeated  passage  of 
laws  almost  similar  to  the  above,  which  were  likewise  dis¬ 
allowed.  Practically  the  only  trouble  arose  in  the  Assembly’s 
objection  to  building  a  fort  at  Pemaquid.20 

The  next  Governor  was  Lord  Bellomont,  whose  commis¬ 
sion  included  also  New  York  and  New  Hampshire.21  A 

18  Sewall’s  Diary,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Ser.  5,  V,  387.  Hutchinson,  Massachu¬ 
setts,  II,  78-80. 

19  Life  of  Phips,  sup .  cit.,  p.  4,  footnote  2.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  81, 
108.  Order  Repealing  divers  Laws  past  in  ye  Massachusetts  Bay,  Aug.  22,  1695. 
Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  340—342.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  906,  pp.  190—199. 

20  Board  of  Trade  to  Stoughton,  Jan.  20,  1697  and  Nov.  24,  1698.  Transcripts, 
Col.  Soc.,  pp.  359-367,  436-438.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  907,  pp.  103-112, 
Vol.  860,  No.  45. 

21  Bellomont  began  his  administration  May  26,  1699.  C.  M.  Andrews,  op. 
cit.,  p.  469. 


40 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


nobleman  in  the  executive  office  was  a  novelty,  and  all  ranks 
vied  in  paying  to  Lord  Bellomont  their  respect.  His  con¬ 
ciliation  with  Elisha  Cooke,  who  in  the  absence  of  Phips 
had  been  returned  to  the  Council,  his  opposition  to  Mather’s 
party,  and  his  veto  of  the  latter’s  Harvard  College  charter, 
his  policy  of  ingratiation,  his  playing  in  his  addresses  on 
the  colonial  prejudices  against  Popery  and  the  Stuarts,  — 
all  helped  to  secure  harmony  during  his  short  term.22 
Against  the  latter  practice  the  Lords  Justices  dissuaded  him, 
expressing,  in  comment  on  his  praises  of  King  William  to  the 
Assembly,  the  wish  44  that  it  had  been  done  without  any 
reflection  on  his  Majesty’s  Royal  Progenitors,”  and  desir¬ 
ing  him  “for  the  future  to  avoid  any  such  disadvan¬ 
tageous  mention  of  them,  least  among  other  reasons  it 
should  alienate  the  mindes  of  that  people  from  Monarchy 
itself.”23 

Much  as  the  fortification  of  Pemaquid  was  desired  by  the 
home  government,  Bellomont  was  unable  to  secure  legisla¬ 
tion  for  this  purpose.24  It  was  felt  that  the  Assembly’s 
failure  to  co-operate  was  responsible  for  the  French  advances 
and  for  the  building  of  a  French  church  on  the  Kennebec.25 
Early  in  1701  the  Governor  was  ordered  by  the  King  to 
signify  to  the  General  Court  that  His  Majesty  was  “sensible 
of  their  Neglect,”  and  “to  require  them  without  Delay,  to 
provide  for  the  building  and  maintaining  of  such  Forts” 
as  the  Governor  and  Court  could  agree  upon.26 

With  his  salary  grants  also,  Bellomont  experienced  diffi¬ 
culty,  the  Assembly  refusing  to  provide  a  stipulated  amount 
on  a  permanent  basis,  and  granting  only  a  44 present”  of 

22  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  112-121. 

23  Board  of  Trade  to  Bellomont,  April  10,  1700,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  493. 

24  Ibid.,  p.  494. 

25  Board  of  Trade  to  Bellomont,  Oct.  30,  1700,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  524. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  1118,  pp.  4-12. 

26  Instructions  to  Bellomont,  Jan.  19,  1701,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  541. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  324,  Vol.  27,  pp.  208,  209. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


41 


£1,000,  which  the  King  later  permitted  him  to  accept.  The 
Assembly’s  attitude  was  particularly  dissatisfying  to  the 
Board  of  Trade  because  Massachusetts  was  “the  only 
Colony  depending  immediately  on  the  King  where  there 
is  not  a  fixed  Revenue  for  that  purpose;”  and  they  advised 
that  “they  may  the  better  be  pressed  to  that,  as  also  to  the 
building  of  a  convenient  House  for  the  Governor’s  Resi¬ 
dence,  and  providing  for  the  necessary  and  incidental 
charges  of  the  Government.” 27 

One  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  permanent  grant  to 
Bellomont  was  the  fact  that  he  had  to  spend  most  of  his  time 
in  his  other  government  of  New  York.  This  was  necessary 
to  prevent  outcry,  especially  from  the  merchant  class  in 
New  York,  to  the  effect  that  the  administration  of  two 
governments  of  the  size  and  importance  of  Massachusetts 
and  New  York  wTas  beyond  the  ability  of  one  executive; 
hence  the  agitation  for  a  separate  Governor  for  New  York. 
Significantly  the  Lords  remarked  that  his  absences  would 
not,  in  like  manner,  be  a  grievance  to  Massachusetts:  “If 
they  [Massachusetts]  can  manage  their  own  affairs  without 
Controul,  and  make  use  of  your  absence  as  a  reason  to  with¬ 
hold  the  Present  which  they  could  not  otherwise  well  refuse 
to  make,  they  will  be  very  easy.” 28 

If  Bellomont  went  to  New  York,  he  ran  the  risk  of  losing 
the  tendered  “present;”  and  when  with  this  in  mind  he 
returned  to  Massachusetts,  the  New  York  people  clamored 
because  of  his  absence.  This  condition  led  the  ministry  to 
take  measures  “that  salaries  to  Governors  may  be  fixed,  to 
prevent  the  inconvenience  and  Clamour  of  Presents.” 29 
A  further  present  to  Bellomont  of  £1,000  was  approved 

27  Board  of  Trade  to  Bellomont,  April  10,  1097,  Transcripts ,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  494, 
522. 

28  Board  of  Trade  to  Bellomont,  April  29,  1701,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  555ff., 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  1118,  pp.  252-256. 

29  Ibid.,  p.  556. 


42 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


by  the  King  in  Council,  June  12,  1701,  but  too  late  to  bene¬ 
fit  the  Governor,  who  had  died  at  New  York  during  the 
previous  March.30 

In  the  estimation  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  one  of  the  chief 
deficiencies  of  the  Assembly  lay  in  its  failure  to  provide  for 
the  defense  of  the  province.  Pending  the  arrival  of  a  new 
Governor,  Lieutenant-Governor  Stoughton  was  “to  use 
his  utmost  Endeavors  .  .  .  that  they  exert  themselves  vigor¬ 
ously  in  providing  for  their  Own  Defense.  Their  neglect 
in  that,  as  in  some  other  things,  has  been  very  great.” 31 

The  next  Governor,  Joseph  Dudley,  1702-1715,  was  to 
many  the  most  odious  of  all  official  New  Englanders.  In 
the  “revolution”  against  Andros,  he  had  been  imprisoned 
and  was  later  driven  from  the  colony,  a  recusant.  Now, 
in  triumph,  he  returned  as  Governor.  But  an  absence  of 
ten  years  had  not  effaced  bitter  memories.  At  the  time  of 
the  “revolution,”  it  was  chiefly  against  Dudley  that  popular 
resentment  had  been  vented,  because  he  was  a  native,  and 
from  him  oppression  was  therefore  more  grievous  than  from 
a  stranger.32  These  experiences  pointed  to  a  future  stormy 
career.  Even  as  his  ship  approached  the  harbor,  the  first 
mutterings  were  heard  in  discussion  as  to  the  advisability 
of  forcibly  preventing  his  landing.33 

Dudley’s  ruling  passion  was  ambition.  Its  object  was  the 
governorship  of  Massachusetts.  To  this  end  he  sacrificed 
friendships,  policies,  and  even  principles  of  allegiance.34 
“Perhaps  like  Caesar,”  said  Hutchinson,  “he  had  rather  be 

30  Instructions  to  Bellomont,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  565,  567.  P.  R.  0., 
C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  862,  Nos.  58,  59.  C.  M.  Andrews,  op.  cit.,  p.  469. 

31  Board  of  Trade  to  Stoughton,  Aug.  20,  1701,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  572. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  909,  pp.  461-463. 

32  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  I,  391.  Dudley  had  also  rendered  himself 
obnoxious  when  President  of  the  Bay  colony  in  1686,  but  was  acceptable  enough 
in  place  of  the  tyrant,  Kirke,  whose  appointment  had  been  feared.  Cf.  ibid.,  p.  341, 
notes;  also  Justin  Winsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,  V,  103. 

33  Everett  Kimball,  The  Public  Life  of  Joseph  Dudley,  p.  82. 

34  Kimball,  op.  cit.,  p.  207. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


43 


the  first  man  in  New  England,  than  the  second  in  Old.”35 
His  aims  were  essentially  selfish;  his  policy,  essentially  pro- 
Britain,  because  therein  lav  his  own  best  interests;  and 
those  interests  he  pursued  with  the  ability  of  a  clever  and 
and  unscrupulous  politician.36  Even  in  the  time  of  Phips, 
Dudley  had  been  intriguing  for  the  governorship.  This  was 
continued  after  the  death  of  Lord  Bellomont,  when,  in  spite 
of  the  opposition  of  Elisha  Cooke,  he  was  successful.37 

In  fact,  in  ideals  as  well  as  their  accomplishment,  even  in 
avowed  statement,  Dudley  stood  for  English  against  colonial 
interests.  In  many  respects  he  was  really  an  Englishman; 
for  nearly  twenty-five  years  he  had  held  posts  as  an  English 
official  of  one  sort  or  another;  for  thirteen  years  he  had  lived 
in  England;  he  had  governed  the  Isle  of  Wight  almost  as 
long  as  he  was  to  govern  Massachusetts;  had  served  in 
Parliament,  and  even  socially  had  identified  himself  with 
English  culture.  As  a  result  Dudley  had  lost  in  great 
measure  the  viewpoint  of  a  colonial  leader.  This,  together 
with  his  conduct  of  the  administration  and  his  unfortunate 
facility  in  arousing  antagonism,  placed  him  among  the  most 
hated  of  men  in  all  the  colonies.  From  England’s  point 
of  view,  however,  Dudley  might  well  stand  as  an  admirable 
administrator,  a  shrewd  statesman,  and  a  loyal  and  efficient 
servant  of  the  Crown. 

To  uncover  all  possible  accusations  against  this  Governor 
would  be  at  once  unseemly  and  unnecessary.  That  has  been 
done  —  and  even  overdone  —  by  the  early  historians  of 
Massachusetts.  This  narrative,  however,  requires  brief 
mention  of  certain  outstanding  facts,  because  Joseph  Dudley 
ruled  considerably  longer  than  any  other  early  governor, 
and  in  a  period  of  transition,  when  political  impressions  and 
political  philosophy  were  in  process  of  formation.  He  had 

36  Hutchinson,  op.  cit.,  II,  194. 

36  Kimball,  op.  cit.,  p.  208. 

37  Kimball,  op.  cit,.,  pp.  81jf.;  also  Chapter  IV,  entitled  ‘'Scheming  for  Office.” 


44 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


serious  and  practically  unceasing  conflict  with  the  Assembly 
on  questions  some  of  which  were  destined  to  be  settled  only 
by  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  The  attitude  of  the 
people  toward  such  an  executive  was  bound  to  become,  per¬ 
haps  by  a  process  not  altogether  conscious,  their  attitude 
toward  the  Crown.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  philosophy  of 
opposition  that  was  then  engendered  grew  stronger  and 
stronger,  assuming  eventually  more  conscious  form  and  in¬ 
creasingly  definite  formulas,  until  it  concluded  in  complete 
severance  from  the  mother  country.38 

Dudley’s  struggle  with  the  General  Court  began  on  the 
day  of  his  landing,  and  continued  throughout  his  term.  Of 
the  members  of  the  Council  that  had  committed  him  to 
twenty  weeks  in  prison  at  the  time  of  the  Andros  rebellion, 
at  least  eleven  were  still  in  office.39  He  opened  hostilities  by 
disapproving  five  Councillors,  and  refusing  to  confirm  the 
choice  for  speaker.  In  1704  two  of  the  five  were  again 
chosen,  and  again  rejected.  The  House  then  broke  all 
precedent  and  especially  requested  a  reconsideration  of  the 
negative,  but  was  mortified  by  his  refusal.40 

38  Dudley  had  been  practically  always  unpopular.  In  1689  he  had  been  mobbed; 
his  house  threatened  in  1707 ;  and  on  at  least  two  other  occasions  he  barely  escaped 
personal  violence.  From  1682  to  1715  “  it  is  doubtful  whether,  outside  of  his  own 
party  and  those  who  were  bound  to  him  by  fear,  interest,  or  gratitude,  a  single 
well-wisher  could  be  found  for  him  in  all  New  England.”  The  petition  signed 
against  him,  and  the  pamphlet,  “The  Deplorable  State  of  New  England”  become 
especially  significant  when  it  is  remembered  that  he  stood  “  as  an  English  official, 
charged  with  the  execution  of  the  English  policy.”  Cf.  Kimball,  op.  cit..  Preface, 
and  pp.  207/f. 

39  Hutchinson,  op.  cit.,  II,  134.  Kimball,  op.  cit.,  pp.  82jf. 

40  The  Governor  had  fair  reasons  for  his  vetoes:  in  the  novel  Massachusetts 
system  wherein  the  Councillors  were  nominated  by  the  House,  a  hostile  House  such 
as  Dudley’s  would  seek  to  seat  Councillors  of  its  own  mind.  Thus  the  veto  was 
the  Governor’s  only  protection. 

Due  to  his  employment  of  the  veto  power,  and  to  his  skillful  management  also, 
Dudley  soon  had  the  Council  manipulated  into  acquiescence  with  practically  all  of 
his  suggestions.  On  two  issues,  however,  it  continued  hostile  —  the  salary  question 
and  the  Pemaquid  fortifications.  In  one  case  wherein  the  Council  had  dissented, 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


45 


This  rejection  of  the  speaker,  a  proceeding  hitherto  un¬ 
heard  of,  was  indignantly  resented.  Dudley  reasoned  that 
his  power  by  charter  to  negative  acts  of  Assembly  included 
the  right  to  veto  the  Assembly’s  act  in  choosing  a  speaker; 
but  after  the  House,  completely  ignoring  his  action,  had 
proceeded  to  business,  he  yielded,  with  a  saving  clause, 
however,  for  his  right  in  the  matter,  and  justified  by 
pressure  of  military  necessity.  Queen  Anne’s  War  was 
about  to  begin,  and  supplies  would  be  needed.  Very  fre¬ 
quently,  even  after  Dudley’s  time,  this  dispute  recurred, 
until  in  1726  the  “Explanatory  Charter,”  occasioned  by 
complaints  of  Dudley’s  successor,  decided  in  favor  of  the 
executive.41 

But  the  chief  conflict  in  Dudley’s  administration  arose 
over  the  questions  of  salary,  and  of  the  fortifications,  es¬ 
pecially  at  Pemaquid.  Owing  to  the  failure  of  previous 
Assemblies  to  enact,  according  to  the  known  wishes  of  the 
home  government,  laws  making  permanent  provision  for 
the  support  of  Governors,  the  matter  had  been  included  in 
the  royal  instructions  to  Governor  Dudley.  These  directed 
him  “to  propose  to  the  General  Assembly  .  .  .  that  an  act 
be  passed  for  settling  and  establishing  fixed  Salaries”  on 
himself  and  his  successors  “suitable  to  the  dignity  of  [their] 
offices.”42  In  Dudley’s  opening  address,  and  in  phrase  not 
conciliatory,  the  fixed  salary  was  urged.  But  the  House,  in 
spite  of  a  leaning  early  manifested  by  the  Council  in  favor 
of  complying  with  the  instructions,  refused  to  do  so,  de¬ 
claring  the  requirement  an  encroachment  on  the  rights  and 

Dudley  falsely  reported  a  unanimous  agreement,  to  the  great  resentment  of  Sewall, 
who  was  one  of  the  dissenters  in  the  measure.  Cf.  SewalVs  Diary  for  Nov.  20  to 
25,  1707,  in  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Ser.  5,  VI,  202;  also  Kimball,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
89-92. 

41  Newcastle  to  Lieutenant-Governor  William  Dummer,  Sept.  30,  1725,  Tran¬ 
scripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  1081,  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  324,  Vol.  35,  pp.  151-153. 

42  Queen  Anne’s  Instructions  to  Governor  Dudley,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc., 
p.  577. 


46 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


privileges  of  English  subjects,  and  maintaining  that  the 
“consent  of  Parliament”  should  be  left  entirely  free.43 
Instead  of  the  £1,000  that  had  been  granted  to  Bellomont, 
Dudley’s  “present”  amounted  to  only  £500.  When  the 
Assembly  persistently  refused  to  obey  the  instructions, 
Queen  Anne,  in  1703,  wrote  to  the  Governor  directing  him 
to  order  the  General  Court  to  “forthwith  settle  a  constant 
and  fixed  allowance  upon  the  Governor,  suitable  to  the 
character  and  Dignity  of  that  Government.”  He  was  in 
the  same  letter  forbidden,  under  penalty  of  removal  from 
office,  to  assent  to  any  act  granting  him  a  “present,”  or  to 
accept  a  present  in  any  form  without  special  leave.44  Inas¬ 
much  as  the  above  mentioned  £500  was  granted  prior  to 
the  date  of  this  letter,  the  ministry  were  of  the  opinion  that  it 
could  be  accepted.45  This  letter  from  the  Queen,  and  another 
written  in  1705, 46  together  with  Dudley’s  own  insistence, 
were  ignored  by  the  House,  which  persistently  refused  a 
fixed  salary.47  In  a  letter  to  Her  Majesty  the  representatives 
explained  their  position,  urging  in  justification  the  authority 
for  control  over  moneys  as  handed  down  from  the  reign  of 
Henry  III.48  In  1707,  in  a  memorial  to  the  Queen,  Dudley 
complained  that  during  the  five  years  of  his  service  as 
Governor  of  Massachusetts  he  had  received  only  £200  per 
annum ,  “which  makes  but  three  hundred  pounds  sterling 
to  support  him,  having  an  Estate  of  his  own  to  assist  him, 

43  Kimball,  op.  cit.,  p.  96. 

44  Queen  Anne  to  Joseph  Dudley,  April  20,  1703,  Transcripts ,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  631, 
632.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  910,  pp.  467-469. 

45  Board  of  Trade  to  Dudley,  July  29,  1703,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  640. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  911,  pp.  104-106. 

46  Queen  Anne  to  Dudley,  Jan.  17,  1705,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  676.  P.  R.  O., 
C.  O.,  324,  Vol.  29,  pp.  315,  316. 

47  Board  of  Trade  to  Dudley,  Feb.  16,  1704,  May  26,  1704  and  April  12,  1705, 
Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  652,  659-661,  682.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  911,  pp.  208- 
214,  330-334,  458-464. 

48  Petition  to  the  Queen,  Board  of  Trade,  Colonial  Entry  Book,  Ms.  40,  E  330, 
cited  by  Kimball,  op.  cit.,  p.  96,  note  5. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


47 


without  which  he  could  not  have  supported  himself  and  is 
not  otherwise  chargeable  to  Her  Majesty.”49 

The  rebuilding  of  the  fort  at  Pemaquid  was  desired  by 
England  in  order  to  secure  possession  of  disputable  territory 
between  the  Kennebec  and  Acadia.  To  Dudley  also  were 
sent  royal  instructions  to  attend  to  this.50  Every  recom¬ 
mendation  of  Phips  on  this  measure  had  failed.  Dudley, 
after  boasting  of  undoubted  success,  took  up  the  matter  in 
his  opening  address.  But  the  Assembly  had  neither  money 
nor  interest  to  expend  on  fortifications  one  hundred  miles 
from  any  English  plantation.  To  them  it  appeared  useless 
as  a  protection  and  seemed  suitable  only  as  anchorage  for  an 
occasional  fishing  boat.  Even  a  conference  with  the  more 
favorably  disposed  Council  was  refused.  Two  years  later 
Queen  Anne,  in  a  second  letter  on  the  subject,  instructed 
Governor  Dudley  again  to  press  the  matter.51  Without 
consulting  the  Governor,  the  Assembly  drew  up  an  address 
to  her,  asking  to  be  excused  from  compliance,  on  the  ground 
that  their  war  expenditures  already  exceeded  £80,000,  a 
sum  that  swelled  to  over  £200,000  before  the  close  of  the 
war.52  It  may  be,  too,  that  Pemaquid  was  a  reminder  of  the 
days  of  Andros.  The  opposition  was  possibly  not  uncon¬ 
nected  with  anti-popery  prejudices,  for  the  fort  had  been 
erected  when  that  part  of  Maine  belonged  to  the  Duke  of 
York.  Because  its  only  real  object  was  the  assertion  of 
England’s  title  to  territory  east  of  the  Kennebec,  the  As¬ 
sembly  insisted  that  the  sacrifice  required  to  secure  this 
purely  imperial  interest  should  be  borne  by  England  and  not 

40  Governor  Dudley’s  Answer  to  a  Petition  presented  to  Queen  Anne  in  1707.  Cf. 
Transcript  copy  of,  in  Library  of  Congress,  bound  with  folio  containing  Com¬ 
mission  of  Sir  Edmund  Andros,  Am.  B.,  N.  E.  1680,  Je.  3.  Cf.  reference  to 
this  petition  infra ,  p.  50  and  note  60,  ibidem. 

50  Instructions  to  Governor  Dudley,  Dec.  11,  1701,  Sept.  15,  1702,  Transcripts, 
Col.  Soc.,  pp.  585,  625. 

51  Queen  Anne  to  Dudley,  May  18,  1703  (first  letter),  and  Jan.  25,  1705,  Tran¬ 
scripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  637/.,  675/.  P.  It.  O.,  C.  O.,  324,  pp.  230-233,  315,  316. 

62  Channing,  op.  cit.,  II,  290. 


48 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


by  Massachusetts.53  It  is  sufficient  to  state  that  three  years 
of  struggle  failed  to  obtain  the  necessary  appropriation.54 

The  above  mentioned  address  of  the  Assembly  was  never 
received  by  Her  Majesty.  Governor  Dudley’s  responsibility 
for  this  fact  is  implied  in  the  Assembly’s  indignant  address 
to  him:  “We  understand  we  have  been  so  unhappy,  as  that 
the  said  address  and  memorial  did  not  reach  her  majesty’s 
hands,  because  proceeding  from  this  house  alone,  although 
the  addressing  of  her  majesty  is  a  privilege  ever  allowed  to 
the  meanest  of  her  subjects.”55 

The  insinuation  was  that  some  one  in  authority  had  inter¬ 
cepted  the  address  because  it  came  from  only  one  chamber. 

In  the  same  instructions,  aid  was  required  for  New  Hamp¬ 
shire  in  the  construction  of  a  fort  at  the  entrance  to  Ports¬ 
mouth  Harbor.56  This  was  a  particularly  tender  point  with 
the  Massachusetts  Assembly,  since  to  their  mind  New 
Hampshire,  which  was  formerly  a  part  of  the  Bay  colony, 
had  been  unlawfully  separated.  Moreover,  New  Hampshire 
received  the  entire  advantage  of  the  fort,  even  laying  a  duty 
on  Massachusetts  trade  along  the  Piscataqua,  while  itself 
never  contributing  to  the  support  of  any  fort  or  garrison  in 
Massachusetts.  For  these  reasons  Dudley’s  three  years  of 
controversy  on  this  subject  were  of  no  avail.57 

By  that  time  prejudice  against  him  had  increased,  the 
people  in  general  regarded  him  as  their  enemy,  and  meas¬ 
ures  were  on  foot  to  supplant  him.57a  The  following  in- 

53  Channing,  op.  cit.,  II,  289#\  Kimball,  op.  cit.,  pp.  94jf. 

64  Board  of  Trade  to  Dudley,  April  12,  1705,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  682. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  911,  pp.  458-464;  cf.  also  Board  of  Trade  to  Dudley,  July 
23,  1708,  Transcripts,  sup.  cit.,  p.  751.  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  912,  pp.  481-484. 

55  Hutchinson,  op.  cit.,  II,  150-152.  Cf.  ibid.,  for  complete  address. 

56  Cf.  the  instructions,  cited  supra,  p.  47,  note  50;  also  Queen  Anne  to  Dudley, 
May  18,  1703,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  637jf.  P.  R.  0.,  C.  O.,  324,  Vol.  29, 
pp.  230-233. 

57  Hutchinson,  op.  cit.,  II,  151. 

67fl  Board  of  Trade  to  Dudley,  July  23,  1708,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  751. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  912,  pp.  481-484. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


49 


cidents,  which  occasioned  serious  charges,  indicate  the 
hostile  attitude  of  both  people  and  representatives. 

Owing  to  a  supposed  lack  of  orders  from  the  Queen  the 
greatly  desired  capture  of  Port  Royal  had,  under  most 
favorable  auspices,  unexpectedly  failed.  Soon,  however, 
there  were  rumors  in  the  colony  of  a  correspondence  between 
the  Governor’s  friends  and  the  French  in  Acadia,  according 
to  which  it  appeared  that  Port  Royal  must  be  preserved  for 
the  sake  of  trade,  in  the  profits  of  which  Dudley  was  to  have 
a  share.58 

On  another  occasion  the  House  even  contemplated  a 
charge  of  high  treason  against  him.  Envoys  to  Nova  Scotia, 
sent  to  arrange  an  exchange  of  prisoners,  had  tarried  un¬ 
necessarily  long,  and  finally  after  two  journeys  had  brought 
back  only  twenty-four.  As  a  result  suspicion,  which  did  not 
spare  the  Governor’s  name,  soon  had  it  that  the  time  had 
been  mainly  occupied  in  commercial  dealings  of  advantage 
to  certain  members  of  the  party.  The  Assembly  showed  a 
keen  interest  in  the  accusations.  It  was  suggested  that  the 
Superior  Court  had  no  jurisdiction,  and  that  parliamentary 
action  was  necessary  because  Nova  Scotia,  the  scene  of  the 
offense,  was  not  within  the  confines  of  the  province.  The 
House  accordingly  tried  and  convicted  several  of  the  accused; 
but  an  order  in  Council  later  declared  the  acts  void,  and 
repudiated  the  alleged  jurisdiction  of  the  House.59  Dudley’s 
leniency  toward  the  accused  was  construed  into  a  proof 
of  his  connivance.  This  affair  and  his  supposed  connection 
therewith  became  the  talk  of  the  colony.  Accordingly  an 
address  containing  serious  insinuations,  signed  by  people  in 
Boston  and  even  in  London,  was  presented  to  the  Queen. 
Dudley’s  reply  denied  the  truth  of  each  charge,  stating  that 

58  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  14G.  According  to  a  letter  from  Cotton 
Mather  to  Dudley,  Jan.  20,  1707,  the  commander  of  the  expedition  gave  as  the 
reason  for  the  fatal  delay,  Dudley’s  own  order.  Cf.  ibid. 

69  Order  in  Council,  Sept.  24,  1707,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  731.  P.  It.  O., 
C.  0.,  5,  Vol.  8G4.  (Transcript  omits  page  reference.) 


50 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


many  of  the  signatures  were  forged,  while  most  of  the  au¬ 
thentic  ones  were  from  obscure  and  lowly  persons.60 

In  spite  of  these  proceedings  the  General  Court  at  a  later 
date  thus  completely  exonerated  the  Governor:  “We  firmly 
believe  .  .  .  that  the  allegations  .  .  .  are  a  wicked  and  scan¬ 
dalous  accusation  .  .  .  the  contrary  being  always  apparent.” 61 

For  the  consideration  of  this  resolution  there  was  allowed 
to  the  House  a  comparatively  short  period.  Moreover,  word 
was  carefully  circulated  that  Queen  Anne  was  especially 
desirous  for  such  an  expression  of  sentiment.  Further¬ 
more,  the  Governor  was  personally  present  during  the  pro¬ 
ceedings.62  Three  weeks  after  this  affair  Sewall  who  was  a 
Councillor  and  had  acquiesced  in  the  exonerating  vote, 
confided  to  his  diary  his  dissatisfaction  with  the  whole  pro¬ 
ceeding.  After  suggesting  sundry  excuses  that  may  have 
influenced  the  Council,  he  states  that  “the  vote  ought 
to  have  been  debated.”  And  later,  in  comment  on  the 
phraseology  of  the  resolution,  appears,  the  following:  “The 
words  firmly  believe ,  and  always  apparent  were  never  pleasing 
to  me;  and  now  I  do  not  firmly  believe  that  the  governor 
did  no  way  allow  Mr.  Borland  and  Capt.  Vetch  their  trad¬ 
ing  voyage  to  her  majesty’s  enemies  the  French.  Qui  non 
vetat  peccare,  cum  possit,  jubet.  Not  that  I  suspect  the 

60  Cf.  Dudley’s  Answer  to  a  Petition  presented  to  Queen  Anne  in  1707,  Tran¬ 
scripts,  L.  C.,  bound  with  folio  containing  Commission  to  Sir  Edmund  Andros, 
Am.  B.,  N.  E.,  1686,  Je.  3. 

The  following  excerpt  is  quoted  by  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  159: 

“That  many  of  the  best  and  most  prudent  members  of  the  lower  House  of  the 
representatives  being  tired  of  his  delays  [in  favor  of  the  accused]  and  necessitated 
to  go  home  and  defend  their  plantations  from  the  enemy,  he  prevailed  with  those 
that  remained,  who  were  scarce  a  number  to  make  a  house,  that  the  accusation 
against  his  agents  should  be  changed  from  treason  to  misdemeanor;  and  they  being 
convicted,  he  laboured  to  mitigate  their  fines;  all  wdiich  was  so  apparent  to  the 
people  in  New-England  that  they  threatened  to  pull  down  his  house.” 

The  mutilated  remains  of  Dudley’s  Answer  are  referred  to  supra,  footnote  60. 

61  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  160,  notes;  cf.  also  Kimball,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
175-191. 

62  Ibid. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


51 


governor  designed  to  hurt  the  province  but  to  gratify  grate¬ 
ful  merchants.”63 

Although  in  its  worst  aspect  this  accusation  was  probably 
without  foundation,  the  incident  throws  considerable  light 
on  Dudley’s  standing  in  the  province. 

Trouble  was  occasioned  also  in  connection  with  preser¬ 
vation  and  encouragement  of  naval  supplies.  Although  by 
a  clause  in  the  charter  the  Assembly’s  obligation  in  this 
regard  was  implied,  the  members  refused  to  consider  them¬ 
selves  bound  thereby,  nor  would  they  pass  any  legislation 
on  that  subject.64  The  ministry  therefore  obtained  from 
Parliament  in  1711  an  act  leaving  no  doubt  as  to  the  As¬ 
sembly’s  obligation.65  These  difficulties,  which  were  to  great 
extent  occasioned  by  the  activities  of  the  Surveyor-General 
of  the  King’s  Woods,  assumed  larger  proportions  during  the 
administration  of  Dudley’s  successor,  Samuel  Shute,  and  in 
its  treatment  will  be  considered  in  greater  detail. 

The  following  miscellaneous  data  likewise  point  to  the 
existence  of  a  general  lack  of  harmony  in  the  time  of  Gov¬ 
ernor  Dudley:  the  ignoring  by  the  House  of  the  additional 
instructions  regarding  regulation  of  the  value  of  foreign 
coins;  complaints  from  the  colony  and  reproofs  from  the 
ministry  because  of  lack  of  justice  in  the  courts,  also  because 
of  Dudley’s  practice  of  sending  prisoners  to  England  with¬ 
out  proper  data  and  proofs  of  their  alleged  crimes;  his 
failure  to  comply  with  instructions  requiring  the  sending 
to  England  of  reports  on  the  condition  of  the  province,  in 
respect  to  which  the  Board  enumerated  nine  headings 
ignored  by  the  Governor.66 

63  Sewall's  Diary,  June  13,  1712,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Ser.  5,  VI,  351. 

04  Board  of  Trade  to  Dudley,  Jan.  12,  1709,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soe.,  p.  756. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  913,  pp.  44-46. 

65  Board  of  Trade  to  Dudley,  Jan.  16,  1710,  Oct.  26,  1711,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc., 
pp.  772,  782.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  913,  pp.  153-160,  252. 

66  Board  of  Trade  to  Dudley,  Feb.  14,  1706,  Oct.  27,  1711,  and  Aug.  27,  1712, 
Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  697,  796,  809.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  912,  pp.  114-124; 
Vol.  913,  pp.  252,  379. 


52 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


The  failure  of  the  Assembly  to  send  any  expression  of 
acknowledgment  after  receiving  as  a  present  the  portrait 
of  the  Queen  may  have  been  due,  not  to  any  feeling  of  dis¬ 
loyalty,  but  to  mere  inadvertence.67 

With  the  death  of  Queen  Anne,  in  1714,  came  a  longed-for 
opportunity  to  depose  Governor  Dudley.  By  a  law  of 
1708  the  commissions  of  Governors  were  to  expire  six 
months  after  the  demise  of  the  sovereign,  unless*  prolonga¬ 
tion  were  especially  arranged  for.  The  Council  waited  the 
six  months,  promptly  informed  Dudley  that  his  rule  had 
ended,  and  had  devolved  upon  themselves,  and  two  days 
later,  Feb.  3,  1715,  deposed  him.68  In  the  following  month, 
however,  he  was  reinstated  by  order  of  King  George  I.  He 
died  soon  after.69 

The  facts  above  enumerated  point  to  the  inevitable  con¬ 
clusion  that  Governor  Dudley’s  administration  of  prac¬ 
tically  fourteen  years  resulted  only  in  an  increasing  con¬ 
viction  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  the  advantages  to  be 
gained  from  a  policy  of  aggression.  England’s  positive  com¬ 
mands  regarding  salary  and  defense  were  still  ignored,  while 
the  spirit  of  opposition  had  not  only  increased,  but  was  far 
more  comfortably  entertained  than  in  the  time  when  the 
thought  of  disobedience  to  royal  authority  would  un¬ 
doubtedly  have  occasioned  considerable  hesitation.  That 
time  was  beginning  imperceptibly  to  disappear. 

For  about  a  year  after  Governor  Dudley’s  death  the 
province  was  ruled  by  Lieutenant-Governor  Tailer.70  In 
the  mean  time  Colonel  Elisha  Burgess,  who  for  military 
service  under  Stanhope  had  been  rewarded  by  an  appoint- 

67  Board  of  Trade  to  Dudley,  March  26,  1707,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  712. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  912,  pp.  322-329. 

68  SewalVs  Diary,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  Ser.  5,  VII,  58,  59,  62;  cf.  also  Worth¬ 
ington  Chauncey  Ford,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proceedings,  December,  1901,  p.  327. 

69  Kimball,  op.  cit.,  pp.  193-197.  Winsor,  op.  cit.,  V,  11 5Jf. 

70  Tailer  administered  the  government  from  Nov.  9,  1715,  to  Oct.  5,  1716. 
C.  M.  Andrews,  op.  cit.,  p.  469. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


53 


ment  to  the  governorship  of  Massachusetts,  sold  his  patron’s 
favor  for  £1,000.  This  sum  was  paid  by  the  Massachusetts 
agents,  Jeremiah  Dummer  and  Jonathan  Belcher,  who  be¬ 
lieved  Burgess  hostile  to  their  policies,  and  who  therefore 
manipulated  the  commission  into  the  hands  of  Colonel 
Samuel  Shute.71  But  they  bargained  unskillfully. 

Chalmers  credits  Governor  Shute  with  no  tact,  no  ad¬ 
ministrative  ability,  nor  in  fact  with  the  possession  of  any 
quality  befitting  his  station.  Commenting  on  a  conference 
held  under  him  with  the  Indians  of  the  Kennebec  and  of  the 
Penobscot  regions,  Chalmers  makes  the  Governor  inferior 
“to  those  who  were  denominated  savages.”72 

The  new  Governor  received  elaborate  instructions,  espe¬ 
cially  regarding  the  public  acts  and  laws,  which  were  to  be 
regularly  forwarded,  annotated  by  the  Governor,  with  date 
of  passage  and  approval,  telling  whether  new  or  merely 
repetitions,  etc.73  The  new  King,  George  I,  was  apparently 
determined  to  strengthen  the  prerogative.  The  instruc¬ 
tions,  in  addition  to  opening  up  a  new  controversy  over 
press  censorship,  revived  the  two  old  disputes  regarding 
salary  and  the  Pemaquid  fortifications.74  Continual  oppo¬ 
sition  from  the  House,  as  well  as  constant  aggression,  occa¬ 
sioned  a  series  of  controversies,  often  petty,  which  dragged 
on  for  six  years,  when  the  Governor  suddenly  left  for  Eng¬ 
land  to  lay  his  grievances  before  the  King. 

71  Governor  Shute  began  his  duties  Oct.  5,  1716.  C.  M. ‘Andrews,  op.  cit.,  p.469. 
On  Colonel  Burgess  compare  paper  read  by  Albert  Matthews  and  printed  in  Publi¬ 
cations  of  Col.  Soc.  of  Mass.,  Vol.  XIV,  pp.  363-372. 

72  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  14,  2 6jf. 

73  Instructions  to  Samuel  Shute,  July  18,  1716,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  888- 
930.  P.  It.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  914,  pp.  467-498. 

74  Cf.  instructions  cited  above,  p.  906;  also  Journal,  Nov.  7,  1716,  April  11, 
1717,  Dec.  17,  1720,  I,  130ff.,  171;  II,  353.  This  citation  is  to  Journal  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  of  Mass.  Bay,  first  printed  in  1715.  Reprints  of  the  entire 
series,  1715-1750,  under  the  editorship  of  Dr.  Worthington  Chauncey  Ford,  are 
now  in  progress,  and  have  been  completed  to  1723.  Citations  to  Journals  of 
later  date  are  to  the  originals. 


54 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Hostilities  commenced  when  Elisha  Cooke,  son  of  the 
veteran  popular  agitator,  espoused  the  cause  of  the  Maine 
people  against  the  supposedly  unjust  proceedings  of  the 
Surveyor-General  of  the  King’s  Woods.  The  long-standing 
complaints  from  this  official  concerning  illegal  appropria¬ 
tion  and  use  by  the  people  of  the  “King’s  Trees”75  resulted 
in  very  definite  instructions  to  Shute  to  prevent  private 
use  and  strictly  to  enforce  the  acts  for  preservation  of  naval 
stores,  etc.76  Cooke  charged  that  the  Surveyor,  who  was 
preventing  people  from  cutting  trees  even  on  their  own 
property,  would,  if  paid,  wink  at  cuts  even  in  the  King’s 
domains.  Chalmers  justifies  the  Maine  people  for  destroy¬ 
ing  timber  reserved  for  the  King’s  navy,  because  of  the  need 
to  make  “room  for  the  operations  of  tillage.”77  The  Gov¬ 
ernor,  by  defending  the  Surveyor,  at  once  antagonized 
Cooke,  the  people,  and  the  Assembly. 

In  the  following  year,  1718,  Shute  rejected  Cooke  as 
Councillor.78  From  this  episode,  together  with  the  con¬ 
troversy  over  the  King’s  Woods,  came  the  practical  estab¬ 
lishment  in  Massachusetts  of  freedom  of  the  press.  In 
Boston  especially,  the  people  were  indignant  and  declared 
the  representatives  delinquent  for  not  more  directly  arraign¬ 
ing  the  Governor.  At  the  first  new  election,  this  town  re¬ 
turned  only  one  of  the  old  members  and  three  new  ones, 
all  unfavorable  to  Shute.79  Other  towns  also  made  changes 
that  would  insure  opposition.80  Words  were  not  minced 
in  the  messages  exchanged,  and  the  Governor  therefore 
threatened  to  prevent,  because  of  its  marked  disrespect, 

75  Sec.  Popple  to  Shute,  May  2,  1710,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  770.  P.  R.  O., 
C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  913,  p.  243. 

76  Instructions  to  Shute,  July  18,  1716,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  896.  P.  R.  O., 
C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  914,  pp.  374-418. 

77  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  \5f.  Journal,  Feb.  14,  1717,  I,  272. 

78  Journal,  May  29,  1718. 

79  Ibid.,  May  25,  1715,  and  June  20,  1716,  I,  1,  111. 

80  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  201-203. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


55 


the  printing  of  the  Assembly’s  reply  to  one  of  his  speeches.81 
This  was  in  connection  with  the  preservation  of  the  King’s 
Woods.  The  General  Court  had  been  censured  for  dis¬ 
couraging  the  work  of  the  Surveyor  and  for  conniving  at 
the  unauthorized  use  of  trees.  Admitting  a  waste  of  the 
King’s  timber,  the  representatives  declared  that  the  Sur¬ 
veyor-General  was  himself  responsible,  because,  as  they 
could  prove,  he  had  accepted  from  private  persons  large 
sums  of  money  in  return  for  the  privilege  of  cutting  down 
for  private  use  the  King’s  trees.  The  same  Surveyor  had 
also  extorted  money  from  people  for  the  privilege  of  cutting 
trees  even  on  their  own  property.82  It  was  this  part  of  the 
Assembly’s  reply  that  the  Governor  thought  would  “not 
be  for  the  Honour  and  Service  of  this  Government  to  have 
it  made  Public,”  and  therefore  objected  to  its  appearance 
in  print.  Immediately  the  representatives  requested  him 
to  “be  pleased  not  to  insist  on  the  not  Printing.”  Messages 
twice  went  back  and  forth,  the  Governor  refusing  permis¬ 
sion  to  print  and  the  House  insisting  on  their  privilege. 
Finally  Shute  agreed  to  yield,  provided  the  objectionable 
passage  concerning  the  Surveyor-General  be  expunged. 
The  House  refused,83  however,  and  the  Governor  therefore 
commanded  the  public  printers  not  to  publish  the  address. 
As  a  result  the  House  changed  printers  and  the  remon¬ 
strance  appeared.84  Controversy  continued  when  the 
House  refused  to  approve  a  bill  for  stricter  press  control 
by  the  Governor,  fearing  “the  innumerable  inconveniences 
and  dangerous  Circumstances  this  People  might  Labour 
under  in  a  little  time.”  85  The  angry  Governor  then  pro- 

81  Journal,  Dec.  10,  1719. 

82  Journal,  Dec.  9,  1719. 

83  Ibid.,  Dec.  10,  1719. 

84  C.  A.  Duniway,  Freedom  of  the  Press  in  Massachusetts,  pp.  86jf. 

86  News-Letter,  No.  890,  April  3,  1721.  Cf.  Duniway,  op.  cit.,  p.  95,  and  note  1, 
p.  90. 


56 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


rogued  and  soon  after  dissolved  the  unruly  Assembly, 
when  the  question  was  taken  up  by  the  news  sheets.86 

In  1721  the  succeeding  Assembly  decided  to  publish  a 
memorial  upon  the  address  of  the  Governor  at  the  previous 
dissolution.  Again  highly  incensed,  Shute  summoned  the 
members,  who,  after  a  second  call,  finally  appeared  and 
were  again  dissolved.87 

According  to  Chalmers,  it  is  really  from  the  year  1719 
that  freedom  of  the  press  ought  to  be  dated.  Thenceforth, 
free  from  former  restraint,  it  “poured  forth  its  libels, 
numerous  and  virulent,”  against  government  and  officials.88 
No  longer  did  Governors  endeavor  to  exercise  a  right  of 
censorship.  After  1720  the  formerly  required  notice,  “pub¬ 
lished  by  authority,”  no  longer  appeared  on  the  News- 
Letter;  in  1725  came  explicit  repudiation  by  the  Council  of 
official  responsibility  for  press  content,  and  in  1729  the  posi¬ 
tive  prohibition  to  printers  against  inserting  “in  any  part  of 
their  prints  that  the  same  is  published  by  authority.”  89 

At  the  new  election  in  1719,  the  House  showed  positive 
defiance  by  choosing  as  speaker  the  Governor’s  old  enemy 
and  leader  of  the  opposition,  the  rejected  Councillor  Elisha 
Cooke.90  Shute,  who  had  really  given  informal  approval  to 
the  choice,  suddenly  repudiated  even  the  knowledge  that 
a  speaker  had  been  selected,  and  refused  to  permit  the  de¬ 
sired  election  of  Councillors  until  he  should  be  informed  of 

86  Journal,  1719,  p.  226  (Ford’s  edition),  News-Letter,  April  10,  and  Gazette, 
April  3,  1721.  Cf.  Duniway,  op.  cit.,  p.  96,  note  1. 

87  E.  B.  Greene,  The  Provincial  Governor,  p.  128. 

Note.  —  The  last  attempt  against  freedom  of  the  press  in  Massachusetts  was 
made  in  1723  by  the  Council  and  the  Assembly  and  also  failed.  This  was  against 
audacious  writings  in  James  Franklin’s  C our  ant,  for  which  the  owner  was  impris¬ 
oned.  It  was  on  this  occasion  that  Benjamin  Franklin’s  name  was  substituted  for 
his  brother’s  as  publisher  of  the  paper,  a  subterfuge  to  offset  the  order  forbidding 
James  to  continue  publishing  the  Courant;  cf.  also  Journal,  Jan.  16,  1723. 

88  Revolt,  II,  20. 

89  Duniway,  op.  cit.,  p.  107. 

90  Journal,  May  25,  1720. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


57 


the  choice  of  speaker.  When  Cooke  was  again  announced, 
Shute  negatived  the  choice  on  the  ground  that  “the  Gentle¬ 
man  .  .  .  had  formerly  affronted  him  .  .  .  the  King’s  Gov¬ 
ernor.”  91  Vehement  dispute  ensued,  in  which  the  House 
unanimously  refused  to  take  another  vote,  and  was  there¬ 
fore,  after  a  session  of  only  four  days,  dissolved.  When 
the  next  House,  with  practically  the  same  membership,  as¬ 
sembled  in  July,  a  new  speaker  was  chosen,  but  with  a  formal 
protest  justifying  the  action  of  the  preceding  House.  The 
members  refused  to  acknowledge  the  Governor’s  claim  that 
the  right  of  negative  over  the  choice  of  speaker  was  his  by 
the  charter  provision,  and  they  maintained  that  the  “Elec¬ 
tion  and  Constitution  of  speaker”  was  “the  undoubted 
Right  of  the  Representatives  only.” 92  Then  came  the 
counter  manoeuvre  of  the  House,  when  the  Governor’s 
semi-annual  salary  was  first  delayed,  then  decreased  from 
£600  to  £500 ;93  while  along  with  other  embarrassments, 
his  negotiations  with  the  Penobscot  Indians  were  negatived. 
That  session  had  not  lasted  two  weeks  when  it  also  was 
dissolved.94 

This  controversy  over  the  right  to  negative  the  choice  of 
speaker  was  later  decided  by  the  home  government  in  favor 
of  the  Governor.95  In  spite,  however,  of  positive  pronounce¬ 
ment  by  England,  the  Assembly  refused  to  accept  the  deci¬ 
sion,  esteeming  it  their  duty  “to  maintain  and  enjoy  all  the 
Rights  and  Liberties  which  we  claim  or  ought  to  claim  by 
the  Royal  Charter;  or  what  is  the  Right  of  this  people, 

91  Journal,  May  25,  1720,  pp.  228jf.,  May  30,  1720.  Session  had  opened  on 
May  25. 

92  Journal ,  compare  data  in  entries  for  May  25  and  July  13,  1720;  cf.  also  II, 
235,  146. 

93  Journal,  Nov.  5,  1719,  received  £600;  July  23,  1720,  received  only  £500. 

94  Convened  July  13;  dissolved  July  23,  1720.  Cf.  Journal,  II,  at  these  dates, 
also  pp.  248,  251. 

95  Board  of  Trade  to  Shute,  March  17,  1721,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  1001. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  ().,  5,  Vol.  915,  pp.  320-322;  cf.  also  Journal,  Aug.  24,  1721. 


58 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


either  as  English  men,  or  by  force  and  virtue  of  any  Laws 
made  by  this  Government.”  And  disavowing  any  inten¬ 
tion  of  offending  the  King  or  of  slighting  the  royal  instruc¬ 
tions  or  prerogative,  they  still  claimed  “the  sole  Election 
and  constituting  of  a  Speaker.”  A  statement  of  their  case 
was  sent  to  England,  although  there  was  some  trouble  with 
the  Council  as  to  appropriating  funds  for  the  purpose.96 

Sentiments  of  the  above  nature  appear  rather  openly  to 
assert  conviction  of  the  supremacy  of  plantation  laws  and 
interpretation  of  rights  over  those  of  England.  They  were  a 
natural  and  necessary  prelude  to  any  declaration  of  in¬ 
dependence.  In  comment  on  the  proceedings  the  ministry 
expressed  themselves  as  “surprised  at  the  extraordinary 
proceedings  of  the  lower  House  of  the  late  Assembly  .  .  . 
in  assuming  to  themselves  an  executive  power,  and  showing 
so  great  a  disregard  to  his  Majesty’s  instructions.”  97  In 
fact,  according  to  Hutchinson,  this  period  rivaled  in  its 
contests  and  political  dissentions  even  the  disturbed  con¬ 
ditions  during  the  feuds  over  religion  in  1636  and  1637. 98 
The  general  state  of  affairs  in  the  colony  was  discouraging. 
Indian  depredations  were  on  the  increase,99  trade  and  cur¬ 
rency  problems  were  causing  distress.100  Pamphlets  ap¬ 
peared  attributing  the  troubles  to  divers  causes,  but  the 
voice  of  the  people  in  general  was  against  the  Governor.101 

In  1721,  when  a  new  speaker  was  chosen,  the  House 
thought  to  forestall  a  veto  by  informing  Governor  Shute 
that  “John  Clark,  Esq.,  is  chosen  speaker  .  .  .  and  is  now 
sitting  in  the  chair  ”  101°  Again  the  exasperated  Governor 

96  Journal,  Sept.  1,  5,  7,  and  9,  1721. 

97  Board  of  Trade  to  Shute,  Aug.  23,  1721,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  1008. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  915,  pp.  329,  330. 

98  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  209. 

99  Journal,  Nov.  3,  1720,  II,  268  and  passim. 

100  Journal,  I,  182,  262,  passim-,  II,  236,  252jf.,  368  and  passim. 

101  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  209. 

1010  Journal,  May  31,  1721. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


59 


would  have  dissolved  them  had  not  the  alternative  been 
suspension  of  business  for  another  year.  Fruitlessly  the 
session  dragged  on  for  about  a  month.  Finally  the  House 
sent  up  a  message  that  it  had  nothing  under  consideration 
and  desired  to  adjourn.  Shute  replied  that  “if  they  had 
nothing,  he  had  something  that  might  prevent  their 
Rising.” 102  Although  they  had  asked  for  fourteen  days, 
Shute  was  willing  to  give  no  more  than  four  until  the 
treasury  supply  had  been  arranged.103  After  two  more  re¬ 
quests,  and  a  message  as  to  whether  he  had  accepted  the 
choice  of  excise  commissioners,  Shute’s  reply  was  thus  re¬ 
ported  :  “That  he  had  sent  down  Ten  times,  That  he  had  the 
List  under  consideration.  And,  That  he  might  as  well  send 
down  to  the  House  to  know  what  they  had  done  about  his 
Salary.  And  that  the  House  knew  what  they  had  before 
them.” 104 

The  correctness  of  this  alleged  reply  was  later  disputed  by 
both  Governor  and  Council,  the  latter  insisting  that  “the 
Votes  and  Messages  from  his  Excellency  and  the  Board  be 
either  fairly  and  truly  stated,  or  else  not  printed  at  all.”105 

Shute  was  withholding  his  signature  from  bills  that  had 
been  passed  until  the  matter  of  allowances  should  also  be 
decided.  The  House,  on  the  other  hand,  was  waiting  until 
the  Governor’s  decision  on  the  measures  passed  should  be 
made  known.  They  objected  also  to  his  practice  of  sign¬ 
ing  acts  and  resolves  after  the  General  Court  had  risen. 
His  determination  to  sign  nothing  until  the  House  had 
finished  matters  then  in  hand  was  regarded  as  a  threat 
and  an  undue  use  of  the  Governor’s  power  for  the  purpose 
of  forcing  the  salary  grant.  His  message  above  quoted 
they  declared  to  be  “the  first  ...  of  its  Kind  from  the  Chair 
to  the  House  of  Representatives  since  our  Happy  Con¬ 
stitution;”  and  they  reminded  him  that  he  could  not  but 

104  Ibid.,  July  7,  1721. 

105  Ibid.,  Sept.  9,  1721. 


102  Journal,  June  28,  1721. 
loa  Ibid.,  June  28,  1721. 


60 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


know  that  it  was  “the  undoubted  Right  of  this  House  to 
fix  all  public  Allowances,  the  quantity,  time  and  manner 
of  their  Payments.”  The  Governor  thereupon  announced 
that  when  “the  Affairs  now  depending  in  the  House  were 
concluded”  he  would  sign  “everything  before  the  Court 
rises.”  But  refusing  to  consider  the  allowances,  the  House 
proceeded  to  adjourn  itself.  When  in  a  few  days  they  again 
convened,  Shute  refused  to  receive  any  messages,  declar¬ 
ing  the  adjournment  an  “Extraordinary  proceeding,”  un¬ 
warranted  by  the  Charter,  and  a  breach  of  the  King’s 
prerogative.106 

The  House  at  once  capitulated,  admitting  that  they  ought 
to  have  informed  the  Governor  and  Council  of  the  adjourn¬ 
ment.  This,  however,  was  not  sufficient,  for  as  Shute  re¬ 
minded  him,  they  seemed  “industriously  to  avoid  confess¬ 
ing,  That  the  Sole  Power  of  Adjourning,  as  well  as  Pro¬ 
roguing  and  Dissolving  the  General  Assembly,  is  Vested  in 
His  Majesty’s  Governor,  .  .  .  and  therefore  [that  they]  did 
wrong  in  attempting  the  adjournment”  without  his  knowl¬ 
edge  and  allowance.  “This,”  he  said,  “is  what  your  prede¬ 
cessors  acknowledged,  in  the  Government  of  Sir  William 
Phips,  and  I  expect  no  less  from  you.”  The  acknowledg¬ 
ment  was  then  made  as  demanded,  with  the  explanation 
that  it  had  “been  so  designed  but  Causually  omitted.” 
After  an  address  of  censure,  in  which  Shute  referred  to  the 
disloyalty  implied  in  their  undertaking  to  answer  an  address 
made  to  a  previous  Assembly,  and  in  publishing  in  the  news¬ 
papers  their  memorial  on  the  same  without  the  Governor’s 
knowledge,  the  General  Court  was  dissolved.107 

At  the  opening  of  the  same  session,  the  House  had  desired, 
because  of  smallpox  in  Boston,  to  hold  meetings  at  Cam¬ 
bridge.  Pending  the  Governor’s  reply  to  this  request,  the 
list  of  proposed  Councillors  was  sent,  but  unaccompanied 

106  Journal,  July  7,  8,  12,  and  19,  1721. 

107  Journal,  July  19  and  20,  1721. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


61 


by  any  vote  or  formal  message.  Shute  refused  to  take  action 
unless  the  prescribed  usage  was  followed.  The  House, 
“considering  the  Distemper  in  the  Town,  and  being  desir¬ 
ous  the  Court  should  be  forthwith  removed  to  Cambridge, 
[was]  willing  to  send  up  the  List  after  the  Usual  Form; 
Saving  their  Right  to  Assert  their  Privileges  at  a  more 
convenient  time.”  The  choice  of  all  but  one  Councillor 
was  then  approved,  and  the  General  Court  was  adjourned 
to  meet  at  Cambridge.108 

The  session  was  not  long  in  progress  when  strained  rela¬ 
tions  were  aggravated  through  consideration  by  the  House 
of  the  Governor’s  speech  at  the  close  of  the  previous  session. 
Because  of  its  alleged  reflections  upon  the  loyalty  of  the 
members,  they  determined  to  send  to  the  King  a  memorial 
“to  Vindicate  the  Proceedings  of  that  House,  &  manifest 
the  Duty  and  Loyalty  they  always  bore  to  his  Majesty 
.  .  .  notwithstanding  the  Insinuations  in  that  Speech,  as  if 
their  behaviour  in  that  Session  had  discovered  the  con¬ 
trary!”  109  The  memorial  explained  their  refusal  to  pass  two 
bills,  —  one  to  prevent  riots,  and  the  other  regarding  libellous 
pamphlets.  Although  the  first  was  modeled  on  a  previous 
Act  of  Parliament,  the  representatives  maintained  that  in 
Massachusetts  it  was  unnecessary  because  the  people  were 
“not  disposed  to  Rebellion,  or  in  the  least  inclined  to  the 
Pretender.”  110  And  the  second  might  give  to  the  judges 
too  wide  power,  owing  to  the  proposed  use  of  their  own  dis¬ 
cretion  in  determining  offenses  against  the  bill  as  it  then 
stood.  This  memorial,  which  without  the  Governor’s 
knowledge  was  inserted  in  the  newspapers,  was  “an  Ex¬ 
ceeding  Satisfaction  to  almost  all  the  Inhabitants.”  111 

Harmony  was  not  increased  when  a  day  or  so  later,  in 
reply  to  the  Assembly’s  question  to  Shute  as  to  whether  he 


108  Journal,  May  31  and  June  1,  1721. 

109  Journal,  June  19,  1721. 


110  Ibid.,  June  22,  1721. 

111  Ibid.,  Aug.  30,  1721. 


62 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


had  accepted  the  civil  list,  the  Governor  informed  them 
that  “he  would  take  his  own  time  for  it.”  Then  came  the 
controversy  over  self -adjournment  and  the  dissolution  of 
the  General  Court,  both  referred  to  above.112 

When  a  new  Court  convened  a  few  weeks  later,  in  August, 
1721,  the  House  passed  a  resolve  to  remove  to  Cambridge 
because  of  the  smallpox  in  Boston.  This  was  the  first 
message  sent  up,  but  Governor  Shute  would  consider  noth¬ 
ing  until  he  had  first  passed  upon  the  choice  of  speaker. 
The  House  then  reported  “John  Clarke,  Esq.,  for  their 
Speaker,  and  that  he  was  sitting  in  the  Chair.”  But  to  Shute’s 
message  of  approval  the  House  announced  that  their  ac¬ 
quainting  him  with  the  choice  was  “for  Information  only, 
and  not  Approbation.”  The  Governor  then  refused  to 
permit  the  removal  to  Cambridge,  deeming  it  “a  giving 
up  the  King’s  Prerogative  to  consent  to  the  Adjournment 
in  the  Form  as  it  was  sent  up  Yesterday;”  that  is,  as  a  re¬ 
solve  of  the  House.  When  a  committee  thereupon  informed 
him  that  the  resolve  was  not  meant  to  provide  an  adjourn¬ 
ment,  but  simply  removal,  Shute  would  “not  concern  himself 
to  make  an  answer.” 113  At  this  time,  also,  came  his  announce¬ 
ment  that  his  claim  to  the  right  of  negative  over  the  choice 
of  speaker  had  been  upheld  in  England,  where  the  King’s 
attorney-general  had  decided  it  to  be  by  charter  vested  in 
the  Governor.  Scarcely  had  this  become  known  when  the 
House  informed  him  that  if  he  would  not  consent  to  the 
removal  to  Cambridge  the  members  would  return  to  their 
homes,  not  wishing  to  risk  the  infection.  Shute  again 
refused  to  consider  the  request  in  the  form  submitted  and 
the  session  continued.114 

In  strongest  terms  the  House  then  proceeded  to  uphold 

112  Journal,  June  24,  1721;  supra,  p.  238. 

113  Journal,  Aug.  23  and  24,  1721.  (Italics  inserted.) 

114  Lords  of  Trade  to  Shute,  March  17,  1721,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  1001. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  915,  pp.  320-323;  also  Journal,  Aug.  23,  24,  and  25,  1721. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


63 


the  action  of  the  late  Assembly  in  the  latter’s  reply  to  the 
Governor’s  objectionable  address  at  its  dissolution,  declar¬ 
ing  they  had  but  ‘‘justly  defended  the  Rights  and  Privileges 
of  this  House.  .  .  .  And  .  .  .  had  the  last  Assembly  been  silent 
on  that  head,  they  had  basely  betrayed,  or  miserably  neg¬ 
lected  the  Service  of  their  Country.”  The  argument  went 
on  to  state  that  the  House  in  its  function  of  representing  the 
people  was  a  continuous  institution;  hence,  both  the  right 
and  the  duty,  when  the  Governor  made  accusations  against 
them  as  a  body,  and  prevented  a  reply  by  dissolution,  to 
make  reply  in  the  name  of  both  Assembly  and  people.  They 
intimated,  too,  that  if  they  were  prevented  from  making 
“just  Remarks  and  Replies  to  Governour’s  Speeches,  it 
might  soon  be  out  of  their  reach,  though  not  inclination,  to 
show  much  Loyalty  or  respect  either  to  His  Majesty’s 
Person  or  Government  in  their  Publick  Capacity.”  And 
though  most  willingly  would  they  lay  down  “their  Lives 
and  little  Fortunes”  in  the  King’s  service,  yet  proceedings 
such  as  the  above  would  soon  bring  the  colony  “into  miser¬ 
able  streights  and  difficulties,”  furnishing  every  one  “with 
subject  matter  to  write  the  deplorable  State  of  New-Eng- 
land.”  115 

The  same  address  from  the  House  upheld  also  the  previous 
Assembly’s  action  on  the  affair  of  the  memorial,  of  the 
Governor’s  speech,  and  of  the  self-adjournment.  In  reply, 
Governor  Shute  simply  expressed  regret  that  they  should 
be  “so  distant”  in  their  respective  opinions,  assured  them 
that  his  rule  of  action  would  always  be  the  charter  and  the 
royal  instructions.  On  the  recent  proceedings,  he  left 
judgment  between  them  to  the  King.116 

Respecting  removal  of  the  General  Court  from  one  town 
to  another,  the  Assembly  now  determined  to  defend  in 
England  the  claim  that  this  could  be  done  only  by  an  “Act 

115  Journal,  Aug.  30,  1721;  cf.  also  ibid.,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  99jf. 

110  Journal,  Sept.  6,  1721. 


64 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


of  the  Government.”  Consequently,  after  a  prorogation 
in  the  fall  of  1721,  when  the  Court  was  reconvened  at  Cam¬ 
bridge  instead  of  at  Boston,  the  House  passed  a  formal 
resolve  allowing  the  removal,  because  of  the  smallpox 
epidemic  in  Boston.117  Of  this  proceeding  Shute  took  no 
apparent  notice.  The  attitude  of  the  House  was  also  mani¬ 
fested  in  its  choice,  as  speaker  pro  tempore ,  of  the  old  objec¬ 
tionable  Elisha  Cooke.118 

Although  the  sessions  of  the  following  year,  1722,  were 
characterized  by  no  disputes  on  important  issues,  there  was 
an  endless  bickering  that  deserves  notice.  When  the  speaker 
was  chosen,  the  House  maintained  its  old  position  by  an¬ 
nouncing  him  as  “now  sitting  in  the  Chair.”  Shute  seems 
to  have  passed  over  the  incident,  perhaps  in  expectation  of 
orders  on  the  subject  from  England.  Two  of  the  Council¬ 
lors  were  negatived.  There  was  again  agitation  for  removal 
from  Boston,  owing  to  the  smallpox,  but  the  suggestion 
was  voted  down.119  Early  in  the  session  the  printer  of  the 
Gazette  was  cited  before  the  House  and  asked  by  the  speaker 
“why  he  Printed  the  Choice  of  Councellors  as  he  had  done 
by  mentioning  but  Twenty-Six  Councellors,  when  Twenty- 
Eight  were  Chosen.  And  by  intimating  that  the  Speaker 
of  the  House,  and  the  Clerk  were  chosen  by  the  General 
Court ,  when  they  were  chosen  by  the  House ?” 120 

Similarly  the  printer  of  the  News-Letter  was  cited,  and 
both  were  ordered  to  print  nothing  in  future  except  from 
attested  copy.  The  House  then  voted  not  to  fill  the  two 
vacancies  in  the  Council;  and  again,  in  the  absence  of  the 
speaker,  who  was  ill,  Elisha  Cooke  was  chosen  substitute.121 

During  the  summer  of  1722  troubles  with  the  Eastern 

117  Journal,  Sept.  6  and  Nov.  7,  1721.  Prorogued  from  Sept.  9  to  Nov.  1,  1721, 
III,  133,  136. 

118  Journal,  Nov.  7,  1721. 

119  Ibid.,  May  30  and  31  and  June  1,  1722. 

120  Ibid.,  June  6,  1722.  (Italics  inserted.) 

121  Ibid.,  June  7  and  14,  1722. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


65 


Indians  were  on  the  increase;  therefore  it  was  decided  to  take 
measures  to  win  over  the  Iroquois  for  use  against  them. 
When,  as  a  member  of  the  commission  to  carry  to  the 
Iroquois  the  Assembly’s  message  and  bribe,  Elisha  Cooke 
was  selected,  the  Governor  immediately  vetoed  the  choice. 
During  this  session,  May  31  to  July  7,  1722,  Shute  was  only 
once,  aside  from  his  opening  address  on  general  topics,  in 
direct  communication  with  the  House.  This  was  in  con¬ 
nection  with  his  refusal  to  acquiesce  in  measures  regard¬ 
ing  enlargement  of  “  the  corporation  of  Harvard  College.” 
Prorogation  soon  followed,  and  the  next  meeting  was 
convened  on  Aug.  8,  1722. 122 

Meanwhile  the  Indian  question  had  become  a  menace 
requiring  prompt  action.  Shute  had  declared  war  upon 
them,  and  now  urged  vigorous  prosecution,  hinting  also  at 
the  tendency  of  the  House  to  encroach  upon  his  powers 
as  military  commander.  “One  thing  I  must  Particularly 
Remark  to  You,  which  is,  that  if  my  Hands  and  the  Coun¬ 
cils  be  not  left  at  a  much  greater  Liberty  than  of  late  they 
have  been,  I  fear  our  Affairs  will  be  carried  on  with  little 
or  no  Spirit.”123 

On  previous  occasions  the  House  had  encroached  greatly 
on  the  Governor’s  military  powers  by  determining  the  place 
and  period  of  military  service,  as  well  as  assigning  the  num¬ 
ber  of  men  to  be  employed.  Nor  was  it  considered  too  much 
to  send  to  the  Governor  a  message  asking  why  he  did  not, 
“pursuant  to  a  Resolve  of  the  General  Assembly,”  make 
certain  assignments  as  therein  directed.124  At  this  time, 
however,  except  on  the  method  of  bringing  to  condign 
punishment  certain  officers  who  were  defrauding  soldiers 
of  pay,  the  House,  the  Council,  and  the  Governor  worked 
with  no  great  friction  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war.125 

122  Journal,  June  13,  1722,  'passim  to  Aug.  8,  1722. 

123  Ibid.,  Aug.  8,  1722. 

124  Ibid.,  Sept.  8,  1722,  Nov.  9,  1721,  and  July  2,  1722. 

126  Ibid.,  June  2,  Aug.  17  and  18,  and  Nov.  17,  1722,  and  passim. 


66 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Toward  the  end  of  the  year  1722,  when  the  Governor  had 
failed  to  give  immediate  attention  to  a  request  of  the  House 
desiring  him  to  send  down  his  orders  and  instructions  to  the 
commanding  officer,  as  well  as  general  data  on  the  conduct 
of  the  war,  the  request  was  repeated,  with  a  declaration  that 
was  perhaps  a  veiled  threat,  that  the  House  was  “very 
Solicitous,  That  the  Affairs  of  the  War  be  carried  on  with 
great  dispatch,  but  .  .  .  wholly  at  a  loss  what  may  be 
requisite  to  effect  the  same,  till  the  Papers  sent  for  ...  be 
laid  before  them.5'  The  request  was  immediately  complied 
with.126 

At  this  time  also,  early  in  December,  1722 ,  the  Governor 
was  inclined  to  refuse  to  receive  any  messages  whatsoever. 
Again,  owing  to  the  speaker’s  illness,  the  chair  was  filled 
by  Elisha  Cooke.  To  one  message  requesting  him  to  delay 
the  express  about  to  go  to  the  Eastern  regions,  Shute  wTas 
reported  to  have  answered  that  he  “would  stop  the  Express 
sometime.”  Thus  the  petty  warfare  went  on.  He  had  occa¬ 
sion  also  to  remind  the  House  that  all  messages  of  a  public 
nature  should  be  sent  first  to  the  Council  for  concurrence, 
and  not  immediately  to  himself.127  Further  disturbance 
occurred  when  Shute  asked  for  a  return  of  the  original  order 
that  he  had  sent  down  concerning  directions  for  the  com¬ 
missioners  to  the  Eastward.  In  spite  of  the  Governor's 
insistence  to  the  contrary,  the  House  maintained  that  only 
a  copy  had  been  received. 

Some  three  weeks  after  this,  the  Assembly  was  startled 
by  announcement  from  the  Council  that  the  Governor  had 
taken  ship  for  England,  and  might  be  expected  to  return  in 
the  fall  of  1723.  During  recent  months  Shute  had  been 
practically  silent,  nor  had  he  given  an  intimation  of  his  pur¬ 
pose  or  of  his  reason  for  going  to  England.  The  representa¬ 
tives,  however,  immediately  concluded  that  he  had  gone 

126  Journal,  Nov.  24  and  28,  1722. 

127  Ibid.,  Dec.  1,  2,  4,  6,  and  7,  1722. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


67 


over  in  order  4 4  to  Charge  this  House  in  attempting  to  en¬ 
croach  upon  the  Royal  Prerogative,  or  coming  into  some 
things  they  had  not  a  Right  to,  by  their  present  happy 
Constitution.”  Straightway,  measures  were  adopted  for 
their  Just  and  Necessary  Vindication.”  In  Shute’s  ab¬ 
sence  the  administration  of  government  fell  to  the  Lieuten¬ 
ant-Governor  William  Dummer,  who  held  office  during  the 
next  five  years.128 

Questions  of  paper  money  and  of  methods  of  meeting 
the  resulting  public  debt  occasioned  constant  friction.  In 
periods  of  economic  stress,  the  House  was  always  for 
issuing  more  paper,  while  the  Council  objected,  and  the 
Governor  called  attention  to  debts  already  outstanding, 
suggesting  legislation  that  would  introduce  a  gold  and  silver 
basis.  Despite  all  objections,  paper  money,  in  amounts 
somewhat  lower  than  originally  planned,  was  always  issued. 
The  trouble  came  from  the  clause  in  Shute’s  instructions 
requiring  a  suspending  clause  in  all  bills  for  issuing  paper 
money,  except  when  designed  for  support  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment.129 

Very  noticeable  during  Governor  Shute’s  term  was  the 
tendency  of  the  House  to  acquire  control  over  public  ex¬ 
penditures.  By  the  charter,  full  and  exclusive  power  to 
issue  the  public  moneys  in  payment  of  public  debts  was 
vested  in  the  Governor  and  Council.  This  fact  was  later 
repeatedly  stressed  in  royal  instructions  to  succeeding 
Governors.  On  one  occasion  during  Shute’s  regime,  when 
certain  sums  had  been  paid  out  by  the  Governor  and  Coun¬ 
cil,  the  House  remonstrated,  declaring  the  procedure  “in¬ 
consistent  with  the  Grant  for  the  supply  of  the  Treasury, 
and  therefore  deemed  a  Grievance.”  The  House  also  opposed 

128  Journal ,  Dec.  28,  1722. 

129  Ibid.,  I,  182,  262,  II,  236,  252,  254,  and  passim;  also  June  5,  13,  and  14,  1721. 
The  Governor’s  instructions  are  in  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  993.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O., 
5,  Vol.  915,  pp.  320-322. 


68 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  Council's  suggestion  to  provide  a  supply  for  contingent 
expenses.  At  one  time  when  the  Council  was  giving  con¬ 
siderable  trouble  through  its  opposition  to  the  form  of  a 
supply  bill,  the  House  took  up  the  question  as  to  the  num¬ 
ber  of  Councillors  necessary  to  constitute  a  quorum.  It 
was  decided  that  the  charter  provision  on  the  matter  meant 
that  outside  of  regular  sessions,  eight  would  make  a  quorum; 
during  sessions,  a  majority  of  the  whole  twenty-eight  would 
be  required.130  The  inferences  are  obvious. 

In  the  supply  bill  for  1721  the  House  refused  concurrence 
with  a  Council  amendment  to  strike  out  the  words,  “And 
for  no  other  Ends  and  Uses  whatsoever,”  —  a  clause  never 
before  inserted.131  By  the  upper  Chamber  this  was  regarded 
as  a  mark  of  distrust  in  itself,  and  the  supply  bill  was  accord¬ 
ingly  so  long  delayed  in  that  body  that  consideration  was 
postponed  to  the  next  session,  which  opened  March  6,  1722. 
Practically  the  same  situation  recurred.132 

The  salary  question  in  Shute’s  time  was  peremptorily 
decided  by  the  House.  Although  the  royal  instructions 
ordered  a  settled  amount,  and  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  Massachusetts  was  the  only  British  province  that 
refused  it,133  the  grants  were  nevertheless  decided  upon 
semi-annually.  Except  in  the  years  1718  and  1719,  when 
the  sum  granted  was  £600,  the  amount  each  half  year  from 
December,  1716,  to  July,  1722,  was  £500. 134  After  the  reduc¬ 
tion  from  the  £1,200  granted  in  1719  to  the  £1,000  granted 
in  1720,  the  Council  suggested  an  increase,  which  was  im¬ 
mediately  voted  down  by  the  House.135  Shute  himself  later 

130  Journal,  June  18  and  30  and  July  4,  1722. 

131  Journal,  Nov.  11,  1721,  pp.  145,  147 ff.,  especially  149. 

132  Journal,  Nov.  16,  1721,  March  6,  8,  and  20,  1722,  and  passim . 

133  Cf.  instructions  in  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  893#\  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol. 
914,  pp.  374-418;  also  Journal,  Nov.  7,  1716,  April  11,  1717,  I,  130,  171,  passim. 

134  Journal,  Dec.  4,  1716;  June  21,  Nov.  19,  1717;  July  3,  Dec.  3,  1718;  June  30, 
Nov.  5,  1719;  July  23  (p.  263)  and  Dec.  15  (p.  347),  1720;  Sept.  8  and  Nov.  17, 
1721;  July  6,  1722. 

135  Journal,  Dec.  16,  1720,  pp.  11,  350. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


69 


complained  of  the  hardship  resulting  from  the  decrease  in 
his  salary,  especially  in  consideration  of  the  constant  de¬ 
preciation  in  value  of  the  province  bills  of  credit;  and  to 
strengthen  his  case  he  cited  the  royal  instructions,  with  their 
requirement  of  a  fixed  and  adequate  support.  Of  this  com¬ 
plaint,  however,  as  well  as  of  a  later  one  in  which  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  declared  himself  the  most  poorly  supported  executive 
in  America,  the  House  took  no  notice.136 

For  the  years  of  Governor  Shute’s  absence  in  England  the 
Journal  shows  no  salary  grants  at  all,  although  the  charter 
required  that  in  such  cases  one  half  the  usual  sum  was 
to  be  given.  With  the  Assembly  thus  stubbornly  set  against 
establishing  by  law  a  fixed  and  dependable  grant,  Shute 
wrote  to  the  home  government  in  1723,  asking  that  in 
future  his  salary  be  paid  directly  by  the  Crown,  thus  mak¬ 
ing  him  independent  of  the  Assembly  in  this  respect.  The 
request  was  not  then  granted;  but  half  a  century  later,  in 
the  administration  of  Thomas  Hutchinson,  this  policy  was 
adopted,  though  too  late.  In  the  same  letter  Shute  com¬ 
plained  that  if  he  attempted  to  uphold  against  the  popular 
will  the  royal  prerogative,  immediately  the  “mean  Allow¬ 
ance”  of  salary  was  even  more  curtailed.137  Four  years  later, 
on  the  eve  of  the  Governor’s  intended  return  to  the  colony, 
the  King  ordered  Newcastle  to  write  him,  saying  that  the 
ministry  had  noted  the  continual  ignoring  by  Massachusetts 
and  New  Hampshire  of  the  instructions  requiring  a  fixed 
and  honorable  salary,  and  this  while  all  other  plantations, 
though  less  able,  had  given  obedience.  The  Assembly  was 
therefore  directed  to  give  “immediate  Complyance  to  what 
has  been  so  often  recommended  to  them.”  And  the  present 
requirement  was  somewhat  changed,  so  that  the  demand 
now  was  not  for  a  fixed  and  permanent  grant,  but  for  a 

136  Journal,  pp.  11,  352,  353,  370,  389. 

137  Shute’s  Memorial  to  the  Privy  Council,  1723,  British  Transcripts,  L.  C.,  339. 
From  British  Museum,  Additional  Mss.  33057,  fo.  435. 


70 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


“fixed  and  honourable  Salary  .  .  .for  the  time  being .”  For 
the  first  time,  moreover,  an  estimate  was  given  of  the  amount 
believed  to  be  suitable,  which  was  placed  at  £1,000  per 
annum  for  Massachusetts  and  £200  for  New  Hampshire. 
In  the  event  of  the  Assembly’s  continued  refusal,  the  affair 
was  then  to  be  laid  before  Parliament  for  proper  legisla¬ 
tion.138 

Governor  Shute  was  not  free  from  censure  during  his 
administration  even  by  the  home  authorities,  chiefly  on 
matters  in  which  he  had  too  widely  interpreted  his  powers, 
and  for  neglecting  to  carry  out  certain  instructions.  For 
assuming  authority  to  try  certain  pirates139  and  for  taking 
from  a  sea  captain  two  vessels  condemned  as  lawful  prizes, 
he  was  called  to  task,  and  told  to  be  ready  to  account  for  all 
admiralty  perquisites,  and  to  return  the  vessels.140  The 
Lords  also  told  him  that  they  could  read  accounts  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts  affairs  in  the  English  newspapers  without  receiving 
word  of  the  same  from  the  Governor.141  His  interference 
in  Admiralty  Court  proceedings  was  also  noticed.142 

Governor  Shute’s  whole  term  was  filled  with  controver¬ 
sies,  some  petty,  some  of  critical  importance.  Preservation 
of  the  King’s  Woods,  censorship  of  press,  adjournment, 
removal  of  the  General  Court  from  Boston,  support  of  the 
government,  choice  of  speaker,  military  powers,  points  of 
procedure  in  sessions,  salary,  —  all  were  questions  hotly 

138  Newcastle  to  Shute,  April  10,  1727,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  1093.  P.  R.  O., 
C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  870  (page  not  given  in  Transcript). 

139  Board  of  Trade  to  Shute,  March  6, 1718,  ibid.,  p.  851.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol. 
915,  pp.  99-102. 

140  Board  of  Trade  to  Shute,  Jan.  3,  1719,  ibid.,  p.  967.  P.  R.  O.,  Admiralty, 
class  2,  Vol.  452,  p.  212.  Board  of  Trade  to  Shute,  May  9,  1719,  ibid.,  pp.  969jf. 
Privy  Council  Registers,  Vol.  86,  pp.  257,  258. 

141  Board  of  Trade  to  Shute,  June  3,  1719,  ibid.,  p.  972.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  pp. 
272-278. 

142  Board  of  Trade  to  Shute,  Sept.  2,  1719,  ibid.,  p.  988.  Admiralty,  class  2,  Vol. 
1052,  pp.  152,  153. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


71 


contested,  and  usually  resulting  in  embarrassment  for  the 
executive.  The  aggressive  House  also  adopted  the  practice 
of  voting  down  practically  every  measure  initiated  by  the  ‘ 
Council.  And  in  order  to  evade  the  law  requiring  approval 
by  England  for  all  acts,  they  passed  resolves  instead.  Shute 
finally  became  so  unpopular  that  it  is  said  his  departure  for 
England  was  hastened  by  the  passage  of  a  bullet  close  by 
him  as  he  sat  in  his  room.143  An  index  to  the  condition  of 
affairs  is  seen  in  the  clause  of  his  memorial  to  the  Privy 
Council  in  which  he  requested  two  independent  companies 
of  soldiers,  one  to  be  stationed  in  Fort  William,  the  other 
in  the  town  of  Boston  itself.  Shute  was  convinced  of  the 
necessity  of  an  armed  force  to  support  the  royal  prerogative 
and  to  keep  the  people  “in  a  just  dependence  on  their  Mother 
Country,”  as  well  as  to  quell  “the  many  Riots  and  Dis¬ 
orders”  prevalent  in  Boston.144 

Governor  Shute’s  memorial  to  the  King  resulted  in  the 
drawing  up  of  a  series  of  decisions  on  those  clauses  in  the 
charter  wherein  the  powers  conferred  were  made  the  subject 
of  dispute  by  the  Assembly.  This  was  called  the  Explana¬ 
tory  Charter,  sent  over  in  1725  for  the  guidance  of  future 
executives.  In  the  letter  announcing  this  document,  New¬ 
castle  wrote:  “His  Majesty  was  very  much  concerned  to 
find  that  the  charge  against  the  House  of  Representatives 
was  so  well  founded  as  it  appears  to  be,  and  therefore  I  must 
earnestly  recommend  it  to  you  to  use  your  endeavors,  that 
a  due  Obedience  be  paid  to  His  Majesty’s  Prerogative  and 
Authority  in  all  respects  for  the  future.”  145 

After  some  debate  the  Explanatory  Charter  was  ac- 

143  Governor  Francis  Bernard  to  Lord  Barrington,  May  20,  1767,  Barrington- 
Bernard  Correspondence,  Edward  Channing,  p.  126.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts, 

II,  260. 

144  Memorial  to  the  Privy  Council,  1723,  British  Transcripts,  L.  C.,  339.  British 
Museum,  Additional  Mss.,  33057,  fo.  435. 

145  Newcastle  to  Lieutenant  Governor  Dummer,  Sept.  30,  1725,  Transcripts,  Col. 
Soc.,  p.  1081.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  324,  Vol.  35,  pp.  151-153;  cf.  also  ibid.,  p.  1087. 


72 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


cep  ted,  with  expressions  of  profoundest  loyalty,  on  Jan. 
15,  1726. 146  The  two  points  formerly  obscure  in  the  charter 
were  now  decided,  namely,  the  Governor’s  power  to  nega¬ 
tive  the  choice  of  speaker,  and  his  sole  authority  regarding 
adjournments. 

Shute  had  all  but  embarked  to  return  to  the  colony  when 
the  King  died,  thus  eventually  causing  his  commission  to 
be  suspended.  George  II  appointed  in  his  stead  William 
Burnet,  formerly  Governor  of  New  York,  godson  of  William 
of  Orange  and  son  of  the  historian  Bishop  Burnet.  This 
appointment  to  the  refractory  government  of  Massachusetts 
was  designed,  not  as  a  favor,  but  as  a  punishment,  —  in¬ 
dicating  the  lengths  to  which  that  colony  had  gone  in  the 
way  of  disobedience  and  aggression.147  In  fact,  the  As¬ 
sembly’s  virtual  triumphs  over  Governor  Shute  had 
disastrous  and  long-enduring  effect  upon  their  subsequent 
respect  for  royal  authority.  Even  a  quarter  of  a  century 
later,  one  of  Shute’s  successors  wrote:  “This  Government 
feels  to  this  Day  the  ill  Effects  of  Gov’r  Shutes  not  being 
sent  back  with  an  Increase  of  Salary  and  Authority.”  148 

In  the  interim  William  Dummer,  the  Lieutenant-Gov¬ 
ernor,  took  over  the  administration  of  the  Government  under 
difficult  circumstances,  with  Shute’s  problems  still  un¬ 
solved,  and  himself  at  odds  with  many  of  the  representatives 
because  of  his  previous  attachment  to  the  cause  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernor.  The  aged  Sewall,  the  only  Councillor  yet  alive  who 
had  held  office  under  the  old  charter,  spoke  in  the  Assembly 
a  few  words  of  counsel  and  of  warning  to  Dummer,  which 
he  summed  up  in  the  significant  phrase:  “Difficilia  quae 
pulchra.”149 

146  Journal,  Dec.  14  and  21,  1725;  Jan.  6,  14,  and  15,  1726. 

147  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  124.  Burnet  had  offended  the  Lords  of  Trade  by  print¬ 
ing  their  proceedings,  and  Horatio  Walpole  by  unsuccessful  support. 

148  Governor  Francis  Bernard  to  Lord  Barrington,  May  20,  1767,  Barrington- 
Bernard  Correspondence,  Edward  Channing,  p.  126. 

149  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  264. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


73 


Since  1719  Dummer  had  received  no  salary,  and  the 
House  up  to  the  time  of  the  Governor’s  departure  refused  to 
make  him  any  grant.150  Thereafter  the  semi-annual  allow¬ 
ance  was  passed  upon  usually  only  after  the  Lieutenant- 
Governor  had  given  a  favorable  decision  on  all  measures 
placed  before  him.  The  amount  fluctuated  between  £250 
and  £400. 151 

Not  many  days  after  the  departure  of  Governor  Shute, 
the  House  may  have  been  “trying  out”  the  Lieutenant- 
Governor  as  to  his  stand  concerning  his  authority  as  Com- 
mander-in-Chief,  when  they  requested  the  dismissal  of  two 
officers  in  the  Eastern  regions,  adding  that  “otherwise  they 
shall  be  necessitated  to  draw  off  part  of  the  forces.”  This 
barefaced  encroachment  upon  his  powers  as  Commander- 
in-Chief  Dummer  immediately  rebuked,  reminding  the 
representatives  that  this  authority  was  vested  by  the  charter 
not  in  the  House  but  in  the  executive.  He  demanded,  more¬ 
over,  that  messages  to  him  be  “properly  addressed,”  which 
caused  an  immediate  change  in  the  wording  of  the  message 
referred  to.152  Instances  of  tendencies  of  a  similar  nature 
occurred  also  at  other  times  in  Dummer’s  administration.153 

Difficulties  arose  also  with  both  executive  and  Council  in 
connection  with  the  supply  of  the  treasury.  The  point  in 
this  dispute  was  that  the  House  in  making  appropriations 
was  claiming  a  power  that  by  charter  was  vested  in  the 
Governor  and  Council,  namely,  exclusive  right  to  issue 
moneys  after  appropriation  had  been  made.  This  clause 
the  House  sought  to  offset  by  determining  in  its  grants  the 
specific  application  of  the  moneys,  and  by  demanding  the 

150  Journal ,  March  24,  July  6,  1722. 

151  Journal,  Jan.  18,  1723,  £250;  Dec.  20,  1723,  £300;  June  20,  1724,  £300; 
Dec.  23,  1724,  £350;  June  24,  1725,  £350;  Jan.  5,  1726,  £350;  June  25,  1726, 
£400;  Dec.  31,  1726,  £400;  July  7,  1727,  £400;  Feb.  21,  1728,  £400;  June  17, 
1728,  £400. 

162  Journal,  Jan.  8,  1723. 

133  Journal,  Jan.  10,  Aug.  28  and  29,  and  Nov.  5,  1723. 


74 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


right  to  oversee  and  to  audit  all  expenditures  according  to 
the  terms  of  the  various  grants.  In  reply  to  a  remonstrance 
from  the  Council  against  such  claims,  the  House  stated  its 
position  by  declaring  that  if  to  the  Governor  and  Council 
were  to  be  given  an  ad  libitum  power  over  the  treasury,  then 
these  branches  of  the  Government  might  as  well  take  over 
the  full  power  of  supplying  the  treasury,  and  therefore  also 
of  initiating  revenue  measures,  taxation  bills,  etc.  In  the 
midst  of  the  conflict  the  General  Court  was  dissolved.154 

The  paper  money  problem,  too,  caused  friction.  Re¬ 
peated  issues  had  flooded  the  colony,  aggravating  instead 
of  alleviating  the  currency  situation.155  An  issue  of  £100,000 
was  due  in  1727,  and  Dummer  received  orders  to  see  that 
the  full  amount  was  drawn  in  by  that  date,  and  forbidding 
his  assent  to  further  issues  except  with  the  King’s  leave,  and 
also  when  made  for  the  necessary  support  of  the  govern¬ 
ment,  for  which  purpose  sums  not  in  excess  of  £30,000 
were  permitted.156  Hardly  had  the  Lieutenant-Governor 
announced  the  receipt  of  these  orders,  when  the  House 
attempted  to  pass  an  issue  of  £50,000,  to  which  Dummer 
refused  to  give  consent  except  with  a  suspending  clause. 
The  difficulty  was  compromised  for  a  time  by  his  assenting 
to  those  provisions  of  the  proposed  bill  that  regarded  sup¬ 
port  of  the  government.157 

Toward  the  end  of  the  same  year,  1727,  because  of  the 
scarcity  of  silver  and  of  old  bills,  and  due  to  the  needs  of  the 
government,  another  issue  was  proposed.  Cautiously  the 
Council  suggested  delay,  but  the  House  demanded  immedi¬ 
ate  action.158  Finally,  when  the  proposed  bill  for  £50,000 

154  Journal,  June  25,  27,  and  29,  Sept.  17,  Oct.  23,  Dec.  17,  19,  20,  23,  and  24, 
1723;  April  22,  1723;  cf.  also  Dec.  27,  1723. 

16S  Journal,  May  29  and  Dec.  5,  1724,  and  passim. 

156  Board  of  Trade  to  Dummer,  Feb.  8,  1727,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  1092. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  915,  pp.  282,  283. 

157  Jo7irnal,  June  1  and  22  and  July  5  and  7,  1727. 

158  Journal,  Dec.  15  and  19,  1727. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


75 


seemed  hopeless  in  the  debating  Council,  the  House  de¬ 
sired  to  end  the  session,  because  to  sit  longer  was  useless. 
This,  Dummer  was  unwilling  to  do  before  the  necessary 
support  was  provided.  He  refused  also  three  more  requests 
to  rise,  reminding  the  members  that  he  had  given  approval 
to  all  their  measures,  and  that  they  ought  now  to  provide 
for  the  government  and  for  the  salaries  in  a  manner  that 
would  permit  his  assent.159  But  the  House  was  anxious  to 
pass  the  paper  money  bill  as  it  stood,  and  seemed  to  feel 
that  Dummer  could  be  forced,  in  order  not  to  lose  the  sup¬ 
port,  finally  to  sign.  Again,  therefore,  they  asked  to  rise, 
and  would  have  put  off  consideration  of  support  until  the 
next  session.  Dummer  thereupon  exposed  their  motives, 
declaring  that  they  were  refusing  support  because  he  would 
not  assent  to  the  bills  of  credit.  In  reply  the  House  main¬ 
tained  that  it  had  already  provided  support  —  by  offering 
the  bills  of  credit.  As  to  instructions  in  this  regard,  they 
declared  these  had  reference  only  to  issues  of  an  extraordi¬ 
nary  nature;  and  they  recurred  to  their  old  resource, 
namely,  the  charter  provision  giving  to  them  power  to 
legislate  for  the  “general  welfare.”  These  reasons  were 
considered  a  sufficient  justification  for  the  proposed  issues 
of  £64,000  and  £50,000.  Admitting,  then,  that  he  had 
asked  provision  for  certain  fortifications,  but  not  for  the 
£40,000  extra  that  was  immediately  voted,  Dummer  showed 
that  the  instructions  permitted  issues  only  for  necessary 
support  of  the  government.  He  noted  also  their  contradic¬ 
tory  statements:  first,  they  urged  paper  money  issues  as 
necessary  to  meet  the  charges  of  the  government;  then,  on 
the  question  of  salaries,  they  maintained  that  the  province 
was  not  in  a  position  to  stand  a  further  issue  for  that 
purpose.160 

There  followed  an  adjournment  of  two  weeks,  after  which 

iso  Journal,  Dec.  19,  1727,  and  Jan.  10,  19,  24,  and  27,  1728. 

160  Journal ,  Jan.  29  and  30,  1727. 


76 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  House  still  maintained  the  old  stand,  the  chief  argu¬ 
ment  being  anxiety  lest  the  people  be  over-burdened.  Con¬ 
troversy  finally  ended  when  the  Lieutenant-Governor  as¬ 
sented  to  the  £60,000  issue,  after  which  the  House  immedi¬ 
ately  proceeded  to  the  salary  grants.161  Dummer  kept  still 
more  to  the  background  after  this,  apparently  awaiting  the 
arrival  of  the  new  Governor.  No  further  disputes  arose. 

William  Dummer’s  term  is  significant,  not  so  much  for  the 
presence  of  critically  important  controversies,  as  for  the 
gradual  strengthening  of  the  Assembly’s  insistence  on  its 
claimed  powers,  which  during  these  five  years  became  so 
natural  in  exercise,  and  so  unaccustomed  to  check,  that  dis¬ 
illusionment  could  hardly  be  attempted  without  opposition 
at  once  seriously  vehement  and  sincerely  righteous.  Some 
indication  of  the  spread  of  this  spirit  in  the  colony  as  well  as 
in  the  House  is  afforded  in  the  incident  of  the  expulsion  of 
one  of  the  members  because  of  frank  expression  of  his  views 
on  the  subject.  This  was  a  judge  of  the  Vice-Admiralty,  who, 
after  Dummer  had  received  orders  to  prevent  further  inter¬ 
ference  by  the  Assembly  in  affairs  of  the  Admiralty  Courts 
and  the  Customs  officers,  wrote  as  follows  to  the  Lords  of 
Trade:  “It  is  a  thing  impossible  to  get  a  jury  in  the  Country 
that  will  do  the  King  Justice  upon  these  Tryals.”162 

Governor  Burnet  took  over  the  administration  of  the 
colony  on  July  19, 1728. 163  During  the  five  years  intervening 
since  the  departure  of  his  predecessor,  Samuel  Shute,  the 
Assembly  had  constituted  a  quasi-oligarchy,  and  there  was 
no  obstructing  its  will,  —  a  fact  very  significant  for  a  new 
Governor  oppressed  with  objectionable  instructions.  These, 
on  the  matter  of  support  of  the  government,  trade  and 

navigation  regulations,  preservation  of  naval  stores,  and 

/ 

161  Journal,  Feb.  17  and  21,  1727. 

162  Newcastle  to  Dummer,  April  11, 1727,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  1096.  P.  R.  0., 
C.  O.,  324,  Vol.  35,  pp.  317-319.  Journal,  Dec.  17,  1726;  cf.  also  ibid.,  Dec.  27, 1726. 

193  C.  M.  Andrews,  op.  cit.,  p.  469. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  ‘  OPPOSITION 


77 


other  questions,  were  most  elaborate.164  In  Lieutenant- 
Governor  Dummer’s  term  the  Assembly,  aiming  to  offset 
the  difficulty  implied  in  the  requirement  to  have  the  King’s 
leave  for  certain  laws,  had  adopted  the  expedient  of  enacting 
laws  for  periods  so  short  that  the  King’s  disallowance  could 
not  reach  the  colony  in  time  to  interfere.  Burnet’s  instruc¬ 
tions  noticed  this  stratagem  and  stipulated  that  the  limited 
period  for  ordinary  laws,  with  a  few  stated  exceptions, 
should  be  not  less  than  two  years.165 

The  arrival  of  the  new  Governor  was  heralded  by  pulpit, 
press,  and  people;  but  the  joy  was  short  lived.  The  very 
cavalcades  and  parades  were  to  Burnet  the  best  argument 
of  the  colony’s  ability  to  pay,  as  his  instructions  demanded, 
a  liberal,  fixed,  and  permanent  salary.166  In  the  instructions 
in  this  regard,  the  more  than  ordinary  stringency  was  occa¬ 
sioned  by  the  Assembly’s  refusal  to  grant  a  salary  to  the 
absentee  Governor  Shute  —  a  fact  that  must  have  brought 
the  salary  question  prominently  to  the  attention  of  the 
home  authorities.167  The  text  of  the  instructions  took 
cognizance  of  past  persistent  disregard,  noting  also  that 
Massachusetts  was  the  only  colony  that  refused  a  settled 
salary,  despite  the  fact  that  it  was  in  a  better  position  finan¬ 
cially  than  many  others.  Immediate  compliance  was  there¬ 
fore  demanded;  and  the  grant  was  to  extend  at  least  to  the 
period  of  the  Governor’s  term  of  office,  the  sum  being  stipu¬ 
lated  at  £1,000  sterling.  Further  refusal  would  be  deemed 
a  “manifest  Mark  of  their  Undutiful  Behaviour  to  Us; 
and  such  as  may  require  the  Consideration  of  the  Legisla¬ 
ture,  in  what  Manner  the  Honour  and  Dignity  of  Our 

164  Instructions  to  Governor  Burnet,  March  28,  1728,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp. 
1107/.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  916,  pp.  67,  109. 

165  Instructions,  ibid..  Art.  13. 

366  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  301/. 

167  Journal,  Oct.  7,  1730,  gives  letters  from  the  colony  agents  mentioning  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  the  ministers  about  this  time. 


78 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Government  ought  to  be  supported  in  our  Province  for  the 
Future.”  168 

Burnet  made  his  “ keynote  speech”  on  July  24,  1728. 
After  referring  to  the  honor  implied  in  his  appointment  to 
the  Bay  colony,  he  proceeded  to  laud  the  King  and  Parlia¬ 
ment,  and  the  ‘‘excellency  of  the  British  Constitution,” 
i.e.,  “the  three  distinct  Branches  of  the  Legislature  pre¬ 
served  in  a  due  Balance .”  He  was  leading  up  to  his  point, 
the  respect  due  from  the  House,  as  one  branch,  to  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  as  another.  Then  came  the  warning:  “His  Majesty 
is  the  Head  of  the  Legislature  here;  the  Governor  is  but  his 
officer,  to  act  by  his  Instructions,  and  to  have  no  Inclina¬ 
tions,  no  Temptations,  no  Byass,  that  may  divert  him  from 
obeying  his  Royal  Master’s  Commands.” 

Citing  Parliament’s  example  of  granting  the  civil  list  for 
life,  Burnet  then  laid  before  the  House  the  royal  instructions 
requiring  a  fixed  salary  of  £1,000  sterling  during  the  period 
of  his  administration.169 

Before  replying  to  this  challenge  the  Assembly  drew  up 
an  address  to  the  Governor,  ostensibly  for  the  purpose  of 
congratulating  him  upon  his  appointment  and  safe  arrival, 
but  at  the  same  time  significantly  dwelling  on  the  colony’s 
privileges  and  its  loyalty.  The  tone  may  be  gathered  from 
the  following  declarations: 

Ever  since  the  happy  Revolution  in  which  your  Excellent 
Father  bore  so  great  a  part,  and  the  Accession  of  Our  Glorious 
Deliverer  King  William  ...  we  have  sat  secure  in  the  Enjoy¬ 
ment  of  Our  invaluable  Privileges  Civil  and  Religious,  and  have 
had  great  Assurance  and  Pledges  of  their  being  transmitted  to  our 
Posterity  .  .  . 

They  went  on  to  say  that  Burnet’s  appointment  was  a  — 

168  Instructions,  Art.  23,  Transcripts,  sup.  cit.,  note  188. 

169  Journal ,  July  24,  1728. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


79 


Continuance  of  the  Constant  Course  of  His  Majesty’s  Paternal 
Care  for  the  Good  of  His  People.  What  could  have  been  so  ac¬ 
ceptable?  or  under  whose  immediate  conduct  could  we  have  been 
so  easy  and  joyful?  or  the  Priviledges  granted  in  our  Charter  so 
safe  as  under  the  Son  of  a  Father  who  was  so  much  the  glorious 
Instrument  of  obtaining  it?  Especially  when  we  consider  your 
own  personal  merit,  the  great  Wisdom  and  Mildness  of  your 
Excellency’s  Government  in  a  neighboring  Colony  [New  Jersey] 
and  your  great  Moderation,  Charity,  and  condescending  Good¬ 
ness  since  your  happy  Arrival  here.170 

Burnet  tersely  responded,  after  which  the  House,  by  a 
resolve,  granted  him  £1,700  for  his  support  and  toward 
defrayal  of  the  expenses  of  his  journey  to  the  province. 
With  this  grant,  the  largest  in  the  history  of  the  colony,  was 
promised  that  ‘ 4  ample  and  honourable  allowance  would  be 
made  from  time  to  time;”  and  it  was  hoped  that  he  would 
accept  it,  even  though  “the  House  have  not  fixed  a  Stated 
Sailary.”  The  faithful  Governor,  however,  pointed  to  his 
instructions  and  refused.  Then,  drawing  up  separate  re¬ 
solves  that  gave  £1,400  for  salary  and  £300  for  the  expenses, 
the  House  sent  a  message  explaining  that  by  the  charter  they 
were  vested  with  the  right  of  seeing  to  the  defense  and  sup¬ 
port  of  the  government,  and  that  their  present  methods  of 
support  were  considered  the  best  and  the  only  possible  ones, 
and  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  their  rights  as  English 
subjects.171 

“The  Right  of  Englishmen,”  replied  Burnet,  “can  never 
entitle  them  to  act  in  a  wrong  manner.”  According  to  the 
charter,  he  argued,  the  privilege  of  the  House  to  raise  money 
was  to  be  exercised  “by  wholesome  and  reasonable  Laws 
and  Directions,”  therefore  not  in  a  manner  “hurtful  to  the 
British  Constitution  itself,  and  the  Ends  of  Government.” 
But  present  methods  of  support  made  the  Executive  “de- 

170  Journal ,  July  27,  1728. 

171  Journal ,  July  27  and  30  and  Aug.  7,  1728. 


80 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


pend  visibly  on  the  entire  compliance  with  everything 
demanded  by  the  other  Branches  of  the  legislature;  by  this 
means  the  Governour  must  either  be  deprived  of  the  un¬ 
doubted  Right  of  an  English  Man,  which  is  to  act  according 
to  his  Judgment,  or  the  Government  must  remain  without 
Support.”  He  then  appealed  to  the  consciences  of  the  mem¬ 
bers  “whether  the  Allowance  for  the  Governour’s  Salary 
has  not  been  kept  back  until  other  Bills  of  Moment  have 
been  consented  to,  and  whether  it  has  not  depended  upon 
the  obtaining  such  consent.”  Once  more  he  declared  that 
never  would  he  accept  of  any  grant  except  in  accordance 
with  the  royal  instructions.172 

On  his  interpretation  of  the  charter  the  Assembly’s  reply 
agreed  with  the  Governor,  but  urged  that  decision  as  to  the 
feasibility  of  laws  lay  wholly  with  the  General  Court,  and  that 
therefore  in  their  conception  it  would  be  a  positive  violation 
of  the  charter  “to  pass  any  Acts  pursuant  to  the  Instruction 
Your  Excellency  has  laid  before  us,”  because  it  would  be 
“giving  away  the  greatest  and  almost  only  Priviledge  that 
gives  Weight  to  this  House.”  They  argued,  too,  that  by  not 
failing  in  making  annual  grants,  their  obligation  to  support 
the  government  was  fulfilled;  and  they  objected  also  to  a 
settled  salary  because  the  Governor’s  interest  in  the  pros¬ 
perity  or  adversity  of  the  province  would  naturally  last  only 
as  long  as  he  was  in  office.  As  to  the  “past  Conduct  of 
Assemblies  in  making  the  Support  .  .  .  conditional,  ...  to 
have  done  so,  as  they  might  have  been  circumstanced, 
would  not  have  been  unreasonable  in  itself,  nor  without 
precedent  from  the  Parliament  of  England.”  Conse¬ 
quently,  for  the  “Preservation  and  Protection  of  the  In¬ 
habitants,  the  two  great  Ends  proposed  in  the  Charter,” 
they  were  constrained  to  refuse  to  pass  a  salary  act  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  present  royal  instructions.173 

In  general  the  Council  concurred  with  these  sentiments, 

/ 

172  Journal,  Aug.  9,  1728. 


173  Journal,  Aug.  15,  1728. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


81 


but  was  of  the  opinion  that  a  salary  at  least  for  the  time 
being  could  without  disadvantage  to  the  province  be 
granted.  The  question  was  argued  between  the  two  Houses 
for  some  days,  chiefly  on  the  duration  of  the  grant,  the 
Council  maintaining  that  a  grant  “for  the  time  being’5 
would  not  be  “injurious  to  the  Inhabitants.” 174  As  a  result 
of  this  disagreement,  the  above  mentioned  answer  did  not 
reach  Burnet  because  the  House  voted  “that  it  is  not  ex¬ 
pedient  to  proceed  separately  on  the  Subject.”  An  ad¬ 
journment  was  therefore  requested,  but  the  Governor 
reminded  them  that  the  King  had  ordered  “an  immediate 
Regard”  for  the  instructions.  The  House  simply  reiterated 
the  chief  point  in  their  argument  against  compliance, 
namely,  that  the  settlement  of  a  fixed  salary  for  the  time 
being  would  be  “in  Prejudice  to  the  Rights  and  Liberties  of 
the  Inhabitants”  —  which  fact  made  impossible  any  “Re¬ 
gard”  for  the  instruction;  and  the  request  for  adjournment 
was  repeated.175 

In  this  manner,  with  messages  going  back  and  forth  on 
the  same  subject,  the  session  wore  on.176  Burnet  replied  in 
detail  to  the  Assembly’s  elaborate  arguments,  declaring 
them  “much  better  adapted  to  amuse  than  to  prove,”  and 
giving  his  conception  of  the  situation  as  follows:  “You  seem 
to  allow  the  Governour’s  Powers  only  so  far  as  he  uses  them 
to  your  Pleasure;  But  in  using  your  own  powers,  you  take 
it  very  ill  to  be  directed  by  any  body.”  177 

This  was  followed  in  the  House  by  another  resolve  against 
obeying  the  instructions,  and  another  fruitless  request  for 
adjournment.  Shortly  afterward  a  resolution  from  the 
Council  suggesting  compliance  was  non-concurred,  and  a 
report  drawn  up  advising  the  various  towns  as  to  the  As- 

174  Journal,  Aug.  19  and  28,  1728. 

175  Journal,  Aug.  27,  28,  and  29,  1728. 

176  Journal,  Aug.  29  and  31,  Sept.  3,  4,  9, 11, 12,  17,  19,  and  24,  and  Oct.  2  and  24, 
1728. 

177  Journal,  Sept.  3,  1728. 


82 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


sembly’s  course  of  action  in  the  controversy.178  Herein, 
under  four  heads,  were  stated  their  reasons  for  refusing  a 
fixed  grant  in  accordance  with  the  royal  wish: 

1.  Because  it  is  an  untrodden  path  .  .  .  and  we  cannot  cer¬ 
tainly  foresee  the  many  Dangers  there  may  be  in  it  .  .  . 

2.  Because  it  is  the  undoubted  Right  of  all  Englishmen  by 
Magna  Charta  to  raise  and  dispose  of  Moneys  for  the  public 
Service  of  their  own  free  accord,  and  without  any  Compulsion. 

3.  Because  this  must  necessarily  lesson  the  Dignity  and  Free¬ 
dom  of  the  House  ...  in  making  Acts  and  raising  and  applying 
taxes,  etc.,  and  consequently  cannot  be  thought  a  proper  method 
to  preserve  that  Balance  in  the  three  Branches  of  Legislature,  which 
seems  necessary  to  form,  maintain,  and  uphold  our  Constitution. 

4.  Because  the  Charter  fully  impowers  the  General  Assembly 
to  make  such  Laws  and  Orders  as  they  judge  for  the  good  and 
welfare  of  the  Inhabitants,  and  if  they  or  any  part  of  them  judge 
this  to  be  not  for  their  good,  they  neither  ought  nor  can  come 
into  it,  for,  as  to  act  beyond,  or  without  the  Powers  granted  in 
the  Charter,  might  justly  incur  the  King’s  Displeasure,  so  not  to 
act  up  and  agreeable  to  those  Powers  might  justly  be  deemed  a 
betraying  the  Rights  and  Privileges  therein  granted:  Moreover, 
if  we  shall  now  give  up  this  right,  we  shall  open  a  Door  to  many 
other  Inconveniences.179 

These  four  headings  indicate  the  foundation  of  the  As¬ 
sembly’s  stand  on  the  salary  controversy.  The  concluding 
opinion  is  most  significant  of  tendencies  toward  a  philoso¬ 
phy  of  political  independence. 

Burnet  then  called  to  their  attention  the  probability  that 
continued  resistance  to  the  King’s  commands  would  result 
in  loss  of  the  cherished  charter,  reading  an  account  of  Lord 
Carteret’s  opinion  on  the  danger  of  maintaining  their  present 
position.  He  pointed  out  also  that  the  memorial  to  be  sent 
to  the  various  towns  included  only  a  partial  presentation  of 

178  Journal ,  Sept.  4,  9,  and  11,  1728. 

179  Journal,  Sept.  11,  1728. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


83 


the  case;  and  he  then  proceeded  to  give  a  detailed  and  full 
account,  filling  in  from  the  Journal  those  points  which  had 
been  omitted,  and  showing  the  illegality  and  the  danger  in 
continued  resistance.  A  reply,  almost  as  long,  came  from 
the  House  in  further  justification.180 

Then  was  revived  the  previously  rejected  grant  of  £1,400, 
to  which  was  added  for  his  future  use  a  sum  of  £1,600.  But 
in  another  long  address,  purporting  to  demonstrate  the  lack 
of  foundation  in  the  Assembly’s  justification,  Burnet  re¬ 
fused  this  offer  also,  seeing  “no  difference  between  this  and 
the  sums  before  refused,  except  in  the  amount ,”  which  he 
construed  as  intended  for  a  “still  higher  Reward”  to  per¬ 
suade  his  yielding.181 

Refusing  another  request  for  adjournment,  and  in  order 
to  avoid  what  he  considered  to  be  the  undue  influence  of  the 
Boston  people,  expressed  through  the  medium  of  a  town 
meeting  that  declared  against  the  settlement  of  a  fixed 
salary,  Burnet  removed  the  General  Court  to  Salem.  Im¬ 
mediately  the  constitutionality  of  the  removal  and  of  the 
proceedings  thereafter  were  contested,  and  messages  on 
this  subject  also  became  frequent.  The  House  then  voted  a 
memorial  to  the  King,  stating  its  reasons  for  not  settling 
upon  the  Governor  a  fixed  salary  for  the  time  being.182 
Again,  adjournment  was  requested,  but  in  vain;  whereupon, 
in  spite  of  the  Council’s  opinion  in  favor  of  the  legality  of 
the  removal,  the  House  refused  to  proceed  to  any  business, 
simply  meeting  and  adjourning  from  day  to  day.  After 
two  weeks,  the  House  still  maintaining  its  point,  business 
was  resumed.183  Jocosely  Burnet  wondered  whether  Salem 
or  Concord  would  have  been  the  better  place  for  the  meet¬ 
ings.184  The  House  then  refused  to  show  to  the  Governor  a 

180  Journal ,  Sept.  12,  17,  and  19,  1728. 

181  Journal,  Sept.  27,  1728. 

182  Journal,  Sept.  25,  Oct.  31,  and  Nov.  1,  13,  14,  16,  and  20,  1728. 

183  Journal,  Nov.  22  and  23  and  Dec.  18,  1728. 

184  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  II,  316. 


84 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


copy  of  the  memorial  against  him  to  the  King,  and  pro¬ 
rogation  soon  followed.185  In  the  interim  preceding  the 
next  meeting,  Burnet  in  his  letters  stated  to  the  ministry 
the  condition  of  affairs,  and  after  the  manner  of  his  prede¬ 
cessor  he  asked  for  two  independent  companies  of  troops. 
For  this,  however,  the  Board  of  Trade  was  not  yet  prepared, 
and  gave  no  definite  encouragement  to  expect  the  regulars.186 

When  the  General  Court  again  convened  in  April,  1729, 
Burnet’s  opening  address  once  more  urged  compliance, 
giving  the  last  opportunity  of  retracting  and  of  demon¬ 
strating  alleged  loyalty  by  respect  for  the  sovereign’s  com¬ 
mands.  But  in  vain.  The  House  refused  even  to  come 
into  a  consideration  of  the  salary  question,  and  soon  after 
voted  £300  sterling  to  defray  expenses  of  forwarding  the 
memorial,  and  for  best  serving  the  interests  of  the  House  in 
subsequent  proceedings  thereon.187  One  of  the  two  agents 
intrusted  with  this  important  mission  was  Jonathan  Belcher, 
destined  to  be  the  next  Governor,  and  therefore  to  be  obli¬ 
gated  by  his  office  to  withstand  the  very  demands  which 
he  now  proceeded  with  great  alacrity  and  apparent  vigor 
to  advocate.  The  House  endeavored  to  efface  all  evidences 
of  friction  with  the  Council.  It  was  necessary  to  make  every 
preparation  for  the  issue  of  the  salary  controversy.  The 
Council,  it  seems,  had  been  refusing  to  sanction  the  As¬ 
sembly’s  attitude  toward  the  question  at  issue,  and  toward 
the  person  of  the  Governor.  According  to  the  House,  the 
policy  of  the  Board,  even  in  other  instances  also,  had  been 
“plainly  to  hinder  and  weaken,  in  preserving  the  Rights 
and  Privileges  granted  to  the  people.”  The  Council  also 
refused  to  concur  in  the  vote  of  £300  to  the  two  agents 
intrusted  with  the  memorial,  because  the  choice  had  been 

185  Journal,  Dec.  20,  1728.  Prorogation  Dec.  20,  1728,  to  April  2,  1729. 

186  Board  of  Trade  in  reply  to  Burnet,  Feb.  11  and  28,  1729,  Transcripts,  Col. 
Soc.,  pp.  1171,  1172.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  916,  pp.  181,  182,  203,  204. 

187  Journal,  April  2,  4,  and  10,  1729. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


85 


made  by  the  House  alone;  nor  had  the  Council  been  per¬ 
mitted,  until  months  after  it  had  reached  the  King,  a  sight 
of  the  document,  which  contained  several  items  not 
sponsored  by  the  Councillors.  The  sum  required  was  then 
made  up  by  subscription  among  the  members.188 

So  important  had  the  salary  controversy  become,  that 
the  House  ordered  a  compilation  from  the  records  of  what 
was  practically  a  history  of  the  dispute  from  the  time  of  the 
first  loyal  Governor,  Sir  William  Phips.189  Diplomatic  rela¬ 
tions  with  the  Council  mav  now  be  said  to  have  been  broken, 
judging  from  the  tenor  of  two  long  messages  from  that  body, 
vindicating  its  stand  especially  upon  the  matter  of  the 
removal  from  Boston,  in  which  the  Governor’s  right  was 
vigorously  upheld.  Directly  after  this  came  the  Governor’s 
message  of  dissolution,  in  which  he  announced  that  he  had 
been  confirmed  and  encouraged  in  his  position  by  letters 
from  the  ministry.  This  message  raised  the  head  of  new 
troubles  when  he  informed  the  members  that,  because  of 
their  passing  fruitlessly  nearly  a  third  of  the  session,  he  had 
declined  to  sign  warrants  for  their  salaries,  thus  in  a  measure 
turning  the  tables.  The  annual  election  for  1729  was  soon 
to  take  place,  and  from  it  Burnet  hoped  for  more  loyal  and 
obedient  members.190 

The  new  General  Court  met  at  Salem,  May  28,  1729. 
Jonathan  Belcher,  above  referred  to  as  one  of  the  agents 
chosen  to  obstruct  the  salary  instructions,  and  who  was  to 
succeed  Burnet  in  the  governorship,  was  this  year  selected 
for  the  Council,  probably  because  of  his  activity  in  favor 
of  the  measures  sponsored  by  the  House.  For  the  same 

188  Journal ,  April  10,  12,  and  16,  1729. 

189  Journal,  April  17,  1729.  This  compilation  was  printed  by  T.  Fleet,  Pudding- 
Lane,  Boston.  There  is  a  copy  in  the  Library  of  Congress.  It  contains  the  salary 
instructions  to  each  Governor,  the  speeches  to  and  from  the  House  on  the  subject, 
and  the  measures  adopted  in  successive  administrations. 

190  Journal,  April  18,  1729.  On  controversy  over  pay  of  members  see  Journal, 
July  3  and  4,  1729,  and  Oct.  7,  1730. 


86 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


reason  also,  perhaps,  Burnet  negatived  the  choice.  The 
dispute  over  the  salary  question  was  postponed  by  a  pro¬ 
rogation  of  nearly  a  month.191 

Shortly  after  the  reconvening,  letters  from  the  two  agents 
reported  favorable  progress  with  the  salary  affair,  urging 
the  members  to  stand  firm  in  their  claims.  Almost  on  the 
same  day  there  was  being  drafted  in  England  the  reply  to 
the  memorial  previously  sent  in  remonstrance  to  the  salary 
instruction,  and  to  the  Governor’s  alleged  power  of  re¬ 
moval.  As  a  result  of  the  hearing  of  the  case  before  the 
Privy  Council,  Burnet’s  conduct  was  highly  approved;  and 
again  it  was  decided  that  his  salary  should  be  £1,000  sterling, 
granted  during  the  period  of  his  administration.192  The 
comment  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  Burnet  was  in  part  as 
follows: 

There  is  much  reason  to  think  that  the  main  drift  of  the 
Assembly,  in  refusing  to  comply  with  what  has  been  so  frequently 
and  so  strongly  recommended  to  them,  is  to  throw  off  their  depend¬ 
ence  on  the  Crown,  which  proceeding  can  in  no  wise  be  justified 
by  their  Charter,  and  never  will  be  allowed  by  His  Majesty.193 

A  secret  letter  to  the  Governor,  written  on  the  same  day 
by  order  of  the  King,  urged  him  to  do  his  best  to  prevent 
any  test  of  the  Assembly’s  obedience  through  the  proposed 
reference  to  Parliament.  Burnet  was  to  leave  nothing  in 
the  way  of  persuasion  untried.  The  King’s  letter  dwelt  on 
the  fact  that  in  view  of  the  Assembly’s  insistent  refusals 
regarding  a  permanent  salary  for  the  incumbent  and  for  his 
successors,  “the  Crown  has  thought  fit  to  recede  in  this 
particular.”  Burnet  was  permitted  to  accept  a  grant  for 
himself  only,  provided  it  was  settled  for  the  whole  of  his 
administration.  The  letter  concludes: 

191  Journal,  May  29,  1729. 

192  Journal,  June  27,  1729;  see  also  note  193. 

193  Board  of  Trade  reply  to  Burnet,  June  26,  1729,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  1176. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  871,  pp.  15,  16. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


87 


His  Majesty  depends  upon  your  Skill  and  prudence  in  making 
a  proper  use  of  these  Hints,  in  order  to  dispose  the  Assembly  to 
pay  a  due  Obedience  to  His  Majesty’s  Commands;  but  what¬ 
ever  you  do  of  that  kind,  is  to  come  as  from  yourself  in  your 
private  Capacity,  and  not  to  let  it  look  like  any  new  Overture  to 
them  on  the  part  of  the  Crown,  as  if  it  were  not  really  intended 
to  lay  the  matter  before  the  Parliament.194 

As  stated  above,  coincident  with  the  writing  of  this  letter 
the  communication  from  the  agents  on  the  progress  of  the 
Assembly’s  case  was  being  read  in  the  House.  From  the 
latter  it  is  evident  that  the  representatives  were  using  the 
salary  as  a  whip  to  force  consent  to  desired  legislation. 
These  letters  from  the  agents  are  of  added  interest  because 
one  of  them,  Belcher,  who  was  to  be  the  next  Governor,  ex¬ 
presses  himself  as  absolutely  opposed  to  any  sacrifice  of 
liberty  by  fixing  a  permanent  salary.195  His  sentiments,  as 
will  be  seen,  underwent  a  surprising  change  when  the  ques¬ 
tion  became  his  own  to  solve. 

The  advice  of  the  agents  was  literally  followed;  and 
during  the  summer  of  1729  the  House  registered  no  change 
in  sentiment.  At  a  meeting  in  August,  Burnet  read  the 
judgment  of  the  Crown,  received  in  the  interim,  on  the 
controversy.  In  part  this  declared:  “The  Point  contended 
for  was  to  bring  the  Governour  into  a  dependence  upon  their 
Good-will  for  his  Subsistence,  which  would  manifestly  tend 
to  the  lessening  of  his  authority,  and  consequently,  of  that 
Dependence  which  this  Colony  ought  to  have  upon  the 
Crown  of  Great  Britain,  by  bringing  the  whole  Legislative 
Power  into  the  Hands  of  the  People.”  196 

194  Unsigned  letter  to  Governor  Burnet,  marked  Private,  June  26,  1729,  Tran¬ 
scripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  1179/f.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  10,  pp.  42,  43. 

195  Journal,  June  27,  1729,  Wilks  and  Belcher  to  speaker,  April  25,  1729.  Letter 
is  quoted. 

196  Journal,  Report  of  Board  of  Trade  to  Queen,  May  22,  1729.  Cf.  entry  for  Aug. 
20,  1729. 


88 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


After  hearing  this,  the  House  went  into  a  committee  of  the 
whole  and  by  a  vote  of  fifty -four  to  eighteen  refused  to  heed 
the  instruction.  Then,  by  resolve,  they  revived  the  two 
grants  of  the  previous  year,  which  had  totaled  £3,000,  and 
to  this  they  added  an  additional  £3,000.  Accompanying  this 
grant  of  £6,000  was  an  address  stating  their  perfect  willing¬ 
ness  to  support  the  Governor,  but  that  compliance  with  the 
royal  instructions  could  not  but  “very  apparently  weaken, 
if  not  destroy  a  very  valuable  Priviledge  belonging  to  the 
House  .  .  .  and  every  free-born  Subject  of  His  Majesty.”  197 

At  this  juncture  proceedings  were  again  interrupted  in  a 
way  not  designed  to  please  the  House,  that  is,  by  an  adjourn¬ 
ment  to  Cambridge.198  At  the  meeting  there  Burnet’s  com¬ 
ments  bore  hard  on  their  alleged  loyalty  to  the  charter  by 
showing,  first,  how  they  were  constituting  themselves  as 
judges,  not  inferior  even  to  Parliament,  on  the  interpretation 
of  Magna  Charta,  to  which  they  had  affectionately  referred ; 
second,  on  their  positively  deliberate  attempt  to  evade 
the  charter  provisions,  by  passing  resolves  instead  of  acts, 
e.g .,  for  supply  of  the  treasury,  the  aim  being  to  escape 
action  by  the  Governor  and  disallowance  by  the  King; 
third,  the  claim  that  in  the  House  was  vested  the  right  to 
pass  on  all  expenditures  before  payment,  whereas  the  charter 
placed  the  full  power  of  issuance  in  the  Governor  and  Coun¬ 
cil,  the  instructions  deciding  any  possible  doubt  by  permit¬ 
ting  to  the  Assembly  only  the  right  of  review  after  actual 
payment.  On  these  grounds  Burnet  maintained  that  the 
representatives  were  defying  the  charter,  instead  of  mani¬ 
festing  attachment  and  loyalty,  and  he  concluded : 

I  have  shown  with  how  little  Regard  you  treat  the  Royal 
Charter;  I  leave  you  to  consider  of  the  decency  of  your  last  offer 
to  me,  after  that  Her  Majesty  in  Council  has  signified,  Her  appre- 

197  Journal,  Aug.  21  and  23,  1729. 

198  Journal,  Aug.  23,  1729;  adjourned  from  that  date  until  Aug.  27,  1729. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


89 


hension  that  your  former  Offer  was  only  made  to  tempt  me  to  give 
up  His  Majesty's  Instructions.  This  apprehension  will  plainly 
appear  to  be  founded  on  the  justest  Suspicion  to  any  that  have 
seen  the  message  of  a  former  House  of  Representatives  to  Gov¬ 
ernor  Shute,  in  July  1721,  wherein  they  acquaint  him,  that  it  has 
been  the  constant  and  well  approved  practise  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentativeSy  to  have  all  Acts ,  Reserves ,  Elections  and  Determinations 
of  the  Court  fidly  Compleat  and  issued  before  they  enter  upon  Allow¬ 
ances  and  Gratuities ,  and  that  it  is  no  little  Concern  to  the  House  to 
see  his  Excellency  press  the  matter  of  his  Allowance  as  far  as  he 
has  done.  This  is  so  unparliamentary  a  Method,  and  so  visibly 
designed  to  compel  a  Governour  to  pass  upon  everything  that  is 
brought  before  him,  how  contrary  soever  to  his  Instructions,  that 
it  can  deserve  no  better  a  name  than  that  of  a  Temptation  to  him 
to  break  them.  And  now,  ( Gentlemen )  I  must  conclude  with 
observing,  that  after  such  a  Declaration  from  the  Crown,  if  you 
will  not  comply  with  His  Majesty’s  Instruction,  you  might  at 
least  forbear  to  repeat  your  Endeavors  to  seduce  one  of  His 
Servants  from  his  declared  Duty.  Whatever  may  be  your  senti¬ 
ments,  I  assure  you  that  I  am  firmly  determined  to  accept  of 
nothing  but  what  is  exactly  conformable  to  the  Orders  of  the 
Crown.199 

On  the  heels  of  this  speech  came  a  reproof  to  the  House  occa¬ 
sioned  by  the  practice  of  adjourning  themselves  from  Satur¬ 
days  to  Tuesdays.  Their  right  in  this  regard  extended  to 
periods  of  two  days  only;  wherefore  Burnet  objected  to  the 
additional  expense  imposed  upon  the  province,  since  in  this 
practice  no  business  was  done  on  Saturdays,  Mondays,  and 
Tuesdays.  Again  the  charter  was  called  upon  for  justification, 
the  House  referring  to  the  clause  empowering  them  to  act 
as  they  judged  fit  for  the  good  and  welfare  of  the  province, 
“and  not  in  consequence  of  an  Instruction.”  They  com¬ 
plained,  too:  “How  insignificant  the  other  Branches  of  this 
Legislature  must  be,  if  an  Instruction  to  the  Governor  must 


199  Journal ,  Aug.  27,  1729. 


90 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


be  a  Rule  to  the  General  Court,  or  your  Excellency  be  at 
Liberty  to  raise  Money  as  you  please  for  your  own  private 
Life.”  Then,  disclaiming  any  sinister  motives  in  the  matter 
of  the  extraordinarily  large  salary  grants,  they  declared  that 
these  simply  served  to  show  the  good  will  of  the  members. 
They  greatly  feared,  too,  lest  he  should  doubt  their  loyalty 
and  their  anxiety  for  the  Governor’s  “Ease  in  the  Admin¬ 
istration,”  and  for  his  “Ample  and  Honourable  Support.”  200 

There  followed  another  long  address  from  Burnet,  “  not 
with  the  vain  Hope”  of  convincing  the  representatives, 
“but,  if  possible,  to  open  the  eyes  of  [the]  deluded  People.” 
He  now  declared  that  the  published  statement  of  the  agents 
Wilks  and  Belcher,  to  the  effect  that  affairs  would  prob¬ 
ably  never  at  all  be  laid  before  Parliament,  was  an  out-and- 
out  libel.  Sentence  by  sentence  he  analyzed  the  preceding 
speech  of  the  Assembly,  showing  the  intentional  evasions 
and  reservations.  The  following  statements,  selected  at 
random,  will  indicate  the  tenor  of  the  wdiole: 

It  is  not  I  that  demand  a  Salary,  but  His  Majesty  himself. 

You  complain  of  Hardships  brought  or  threatened  from  to  Compel 
you  to  a  Compliance ,  but  you  carefully  avoid  taking  any  notice 
of  the  Hardships  brought  and  threatened  by  you  to  Governor  Shute 
to  compel  him  to  a  compliance. 

It  is  not  because  that  it  is  an  Instruction  that  it  must  be  a 
Rule,  but  because  it  is  Just  and  Right. 

You  are  very  fond  of  comparing  yourselves  with  that  August 
Body  [Parliament]  when  you  speak  of  your  own  Powers,  [yet[  I 
must  remind  you  that  you  are  subordinate  to  them,  and  Account¬ 
able  to  them  for  your  Actions. 

It  would  be  well  for  you  to  remember  who  made  this  Province 
that  was  once  flourishing  to  decline  so  much;  Even  they  who  have 
ruined  the  Credit  of  it  by  making  a  Deluge  of  Paper  Money, 
which  your  very  Petitioners  among  the  Merchants  will  maintain.201 

200  Journal,  Aug.  29  and  30,  1729. 

201  Journal,  Sept.  3,  1729. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


91 


Thus,  point  by  point,  he  exposed  the  false  foundations  of 
the  contentions  of  the  House  wherever  based  upon  appeal 
to  Magna  Charta  and  to  the  royal  charter.  And  in  order 
to  impress  the  seriousness  of  the  intentions  of  the  home 
government,  he  quoted  recent  legislation  of  Parliament  in 
connection  with  settlement  of  the  disputed  authority  re¬ 
garding  Ireland. 

Four  days  later,  after  a  sudden  short  illness,  Governor 
Burnet  died.202 

After  arranging  for  his  “Decent  and  Honorable  Inter¬ 
ment/’  the  House  entered  upon  their  reply  to  the  above 
mentioned  address,  declaring  the  censures  to  be  groundless, 
protesting  their  loyalty,  and  avoiding  the  issue  in  the  salary 
controversy  by  asking  whether  “the  Assembly  have  not 
shown  as  great  an  Inclination  for  your  Support,  as  your 
Excellency  has  for  the  Good  of  this  Province.”  Nor  could 
they  perceive  how  the  ordinances  of  New  York  regarding  fees, 
a  subject  to  be  treated  presently,  could  justify  the  Governor 
of  Massachusetts  in  enlarging  them.  “And  there  are  many 
other  Particulars,  which  the  House  think  very  Exception¬ 
able,  all  which  to  Remark,  would  be  very  tedious.”203 

The  bitterness  of  constant  controversy  did  not  prevent 
the  Assembly  from  voting  for  Governor  Burnet’s  funeral 
more  than  £1,1 00. 20 4  During  the  whole  of  his  administra¬ 
tion  the  Governor  had  steadily  refused  the  most  tempting 
offers  to  ignore  his  instructions,  his  loyalty  entailing  the 
sacrifice  of  all  support.  According  to  a  later  calculation  of 
the  Council,  there  was  due  to  him  the  sum  of  £3,400  sterl¬ 
ing.205  Although  the  Assembly  in  subsequent  times  was 
by  no  means  willing  to  make  up  to  his  heirs  the  full  amount, 
the  King  ordered  a  settlement,  and  the  Assembly  finally 
voted  £2,500.  The  Council,  however,  insisted  on  the  full 

202  Journal,  Sept.  7,  1729.  204  Journal,  Sept.  26,  1729. 

203  Journal,  Sept.  8,  1729.  205  Journal,  Jan.  2,  1731. 


92 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


amount,  and  years  later  the  Assembly  compromised  by 
granting  to  the  heirs  £3, 000. 206 

In  Governor  Burnet’s  administration  there  was  consider¬ 
able  trouble  also  because  of  his  alleged  extortion  of  high 
fees  on  the  clearance  of  shipping.207  Although  by  no  law  of 
the  province  were  fees  allowed  to  the  Governor  for  enforce¬ 
ment  of  the  Acts  of  Trade,  it  had  been  the  custom  to  re¬ 
ceive  them;  and  in  doing  so,  Burnet  simply  followed  this 
custom  as  well  as  the  legal  practice  in  New  York.  He  there¬ 
fore  denied  the  Assembly’s  charge  that  he  was  “taking 
what  he  pleased,”  declaring  that  he  had  raised  the  custom¬ 
ary  fee  only  to  approximate  its  value  in  present  depreciated 
money.  The  complaint  of  the  Assembly  to  the  King  that 
the  fees  were  too  large  resulted  in  later  instructions  pro¬ 
hibiting  all  except  legal  and  customary  fees.208 

The  salary  controversy  was  by  far  the  chief  and  the  most 
absorbing  incident  of  Burnet’s  administration.  Other  affairs 
that  caused  conflict,  but  which  by  comparison  deserve  no 
more  than  the  mere  mention,  were  the  disagreements  over 
the  treasury  supply  209  and  bills  of  credit,210  as  well  as  the 
efforts  of  the  House  to  obtain  control  of  public  expendi¬ 
tures  211  and  attempting  to  take  part,  as  usual,  in  the  nomi¬ 
nation  of  the  attorney-general.212 

For  another  short  period  the  Lieutenant-Governor 
William  Dummer,  followed  by  William  Tailer,  adminis¬ 
tered  the  government.213  Dummer  followed  the  example 
of  Burnet  by  immediately  insisting  on  compliance  with  the 

206  Cf.  Journal ,  Jan.  2,  1731,  for  King’s  order,  dated  May  8,  1730;  also  ibid., 
March  23,  April  8,  Nov.  2,  1731. 

207  Journal,  Oct.  7  and  29,  1730. 

208  Ibid.,  Sept.  3  and  20,  1729,  and  May  28,  1730. 

209  Ibid.,  July  3  and  9,  1729. 

210  Ibid.,  Aug.  19  and  Oct.  1,  24,  and  31,  1728. 

211  Ibid.,  Oct.  7,  1730. 

2,2  Ibid.,  June  25,  1729. 

213  Ibid.,  Sept.  8,  1729.  Dummer  took  charge  on  this  date;  Tailer  met  his  first 
Assembly  June  30,  1730. 


EARLY  DEMOCRATIC  OPPOSITION 


93 


salary  instructions.  Still  avowing  their  willingness  to  sup¬ 
port  the  executive,  the  House  maintained  that  the  instruc¬ 
tions  did  not  intend  the  salary  grant  to  be  fixed  during  the 
term  of  office.  But  the  Lieutenant-Governor  insisted  on 
the  plain  wording  of  the  instruction,  which  left  no  doubt. 
Again,  in  “Faithfulness  to  [their]  Country”  the  House 
refused  to  comply  with  the  requirement  “as  it  now’  stands, 
for  the  Reasons  heretofore  given.”  214 

Meantime,  the  Council  was  refusing  concurrence  in  a 
proposed  appropriation  of  £500  for  the  agents  who  were 
fighting  the  Assembly’s  case  in  England.215  The  only  re¬ 
source  remaining  wras  general  subscription  for  funds,  which 
was  later  adopted.  After  a  prorogation  to  the  fall  the  dis¬ 
pute  continued,  Dummer  and  the  Assembly  each  main¬ 
taining  their  position  on  the  salary  question,  and  the  Council 
declaring  in  the  above  connection  that  it  could  not  support 
a  project  that  aimed  at  overthrowing  the  King’s  instruc¬ 
tions.216  Appealing  to  the  right  of  petition,  the  House 
intimated  that  in  the  event  of  further  obstruction  from  the 
Council,  other  means  for  supplying  the  funds  would  be 
found.  A  resolve  then  granted  £5,000  to  the  speaker  “to  be 
used  and  employed  according  to  the  Direction  of  the 
House.”  A  subscription,  which  aimed  at  collecting  £1,000 
sterling,  or  £4,000  in  bills  of  credit,  was  also  taken  up  through 
the  province,  but  with  poor  success.217  Shortly  afterward  the 
grant  of  £5,000  w  as  consented  to  by  the  Council,  with  amend¬ 
ments  providing  that  £3,000  go  to  Burnet’s  heirs,  and  the 
remainder  to  the  agents.  Long  messages  were  exchanged, 
the  House  finally  summing  up  its  arguments  in  the  appeal : 
“Self-Preservation  —  Salus  Populi  est  Suprema  Lex.”  218 
Prorogation  to  the  following  May  ended  the  dispute.219 

214  Journal  Sept.  10,  18,  and  20,  1729. 

215  Ibid.,  Sept.  4,  1729. 

216  Prorogation  to  Nov.  19, 1729;  cf.  also  Journal,  Nov.  19  and  20  and  Dec.  3, 1729. 

217  Ibid.,  Dec.  9,  12,  and  19,  1729. 

218  Ibid.,  Dec.  19,  1729. 

219  Prorogation  from  Dec.  20,  1729,  to  May  27,  1730.  Cf.  Journal  at  these  dates. 


CHAPTER  II 


ENLARGING  INTERPRETATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL 

RIGHTS,  1730-1760. 

The  new  Governor,  Jonathan  Belcher,  a  native,  began 
his  stormy  administration  of  ten  years  on  Aug.  10,  1730. 1 
It  should  be  noted  that  his  term  occurred  midway  between 
the  New  England  Revolution  of  1689  and  the  American 
Revolution  of  1775-1776.  During  the  preceding  period  the 
balance  of  colonial  political  sentiment  tipped  slowly  over, 
showing  definite  hostility  to  political  and  economic  direc¬ 
tion  by  the  parent  state.  In  spite  of  instructions  most  ex¬ 
plicit,  and  even  of  threats  of  loss  of  the  cherished  charter, 
the  Massachusetts  government,  encouraged  by  the  vacillat¬ 
ing  and  unstable  policy  of  the  ministry,  henceforth  brazenly 
resisted  wherever  resistance  seemed  expedient  and  to  its 
purpose,  which  latter  was  to  secure  a  widening  of  constitu¬ 
tional  powers.  At  this  period  in  its  history,  such  phrases 
as  “his  Majesty’s  displeasure,”  “the  royal  censure,”  and  the 
like  were  losing,  in  fact  had  actually  lost,  most  of  their 
wonted  awe-inspiring  qualities. 

Governor  Belcher’s  principles  of  allegiance  were  most 
pliant  —  always  leaning  to  the  side  that  promised  present 
advantage  in  the  way  of  prestige.  With  change  in  the 
direction  of  political  lights,  new  colors  appeared  in  his 
policies.  As  a  consequence,  it  was  easy  for  Belcher  to  swing 
promiscuously  in  the  balance.  From  being  a  staunch  de¬ 
fender  of  prerogative,  he  had  already  shifted  sufficiently  to 
be  elected  chairman  of  the  above  mentioned  Boston  towTn 
meeting  that  had  so  strongly  opposed  a  settled  salary  for 
Governor  Burnet,  and  that  had  set  up  a  “pattern  of  opposi- 


1  C.  M.  Andrews,  op.  cit.,  p.  469. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


95 


tion  to  the  province.”  2  Perhaps  it  was  knowledge  of  this 
instability  in  Belcher’s  character  that  prompted  Governor 
Burnet  in  1729  to  disapprove  his  election  to  the  Council.3 
Belcher,  as  we  have  seen,  had  also  been  the  colony’s  agent 
in  England,  sent  over  especially  to  oppose  the  salary  in¬ 
structions;  and  it  was  in  this  capacity  that  he  had  written 
to  the  House  for  further  information  calculated  to  prove 
“how  little  a  Governor  is  to  be  trusted  with  the  Liberties 
of  a  People.”4  But  when  the  news  came  of  Burnet’s  death, 
his  passion  for  authority  was  warmed  by  visions  of  his  own 
appointment  to  the  chief  position  in  the  colony.  Immedi¬ 
ately,  therefore,  he  swung  back  to  the  side  of  prerogative, 
with  most  flattering  promises  to  the  Board  of  Trade  that  if 
appointed  he  would  find  means  of  enforcing  tbe  very  instruc¬ 
tions  that  he  had  crossed  the  ocean  to  oppose.5  Persuaded 
that  a  popular  citizen  of  Boston,  which  Belcher  then  was, 
might  be  better  able  than  a  stranger  to  secure  compliance 
with  instructions,  the  ministry  arranged  the  appointment.6 

In  spite  of  these  agile  allegiances,  however,  Belcher 
created  in  England  and  in  each  of  his  two  American 
provinces  the  same  uncomplimentary  impression.  The 
fact  becomes  more  significant  when  it  is  recalled  that  New 
Hampshire  and  Massachusetts  were  then  at  dagger’s  points. 
Ordinarily,  one  or  the  other  would  have  courted  the  Gov¬ 
ernor’s  good  graces,  but  he  himself  wrote:  “As  you  observe, 
I  am  ingaged  in  a  triple  confederacy,  every  one  contradict¬ 
ing  the  other,  tho’  they  agree  in  the  main  point,  Delenda  est 
Carthago,  the  Governour  must  be  (if  possible)  unhorst.”  7 

2  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  132. 

3  Journal,  May  29,  1729. 

4  Journal,  Aug.  23,  1729,  Belcher  and  Wilks  to  speaker,  June  7,  1729;  also 
June  25,  1729,  and  Oct.  7,  1731,  pp.  74/. 

6  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  6,  VI,  18/,  2G. 

8  Wilks  (agent  with  Belcher)  to  House  of  Representatives,  Journal,  Oct.  7,  1730. 

7  Belcher  to  Richard  Waldron,  Secretary  of  New  Hampshire,  the  correspondent 
to  whom  he  wrote  with  least  reserve.  Cf.  Belcher  Papers  in  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll., 
Series  G,  VII,  222. 


96 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Governor  Belcher’s  arrival  in  the  province  was  greeted 
by  the  usual  demonstrations  of  welcome,  after  which  his 
opening  address  to  the  General  Court  was  eagerly  awaited. 
He  had  gone  to  England  for  the  express  purpose  of  opposing 
the  salary  instructions,  returning  himself  as  Governor,  and 
therefore  with  the  obligation  of  enforcing  them.  His  atti¬ 
tude  on  the  delicate  question  was  naturally  a  subject  of 
widespread  interest.  The  opening  address,  however,  was 
for  Belcher  the  first  step  in  a  career  of  endless  controversy. 
In  it  he  repudiated  all  of  his  recent  anti-prerogative  senti¬ 
ments  by  a  determined  insistence  on  compliance  with  the 
instructions  that  demanded  a  settled  salary  of  £1,000,  to  be 
conferred  by  law  upon  himself  and  his  successors.  Thinking 
better  to  enforce  the  point,  he  made  use  of  a  simile  designed 
to  flatter  and  to  win,  but  which  through  an  unexpected  in¬ 
terpretation  was  retorted  against  him.  He  compared  Mas¬ 
sachusetts,  under  restraint  of  the  royal  instructions,  to 
Cato  the  Younger  imprisoned  in  Utica.  Cato’s  courageous 
stand  there  for  the  liberties  of  his  country  was  certainly 
commendable;  but  not  so  the  self-destruction  that  he  sought 
in  preference  to  submission  to  irresistible  force.  Similarly, 
the  House  ought  not  to  resist  the  boundless  power  of  the 
Crown. 

This  simile  was  immediately  carried  to  its  logical  con¬ 
clusion:  if  Caesar,  whom  Cato  had  defied,  was  a  tyrant, 
then  Belcher  had  to  admit  that  the  King  also  was  a  tyrant, 
and  that  the  Assembly  had  therefore  done  well  in  defend¬ 
ing  their  liberties;  otherwise,  that  the  argument  had  no 
meaning.8 

On  the  salary  question  Belcher  received  the  longest  in¬ 
structions  yet  issued.  The  ministry,  although  they  noted 
the  failure  to  obey  in  Burnet’s  regard,  nevertheless  sug¬ 
gested  that  the  King  “Suspend  his  just  Resentments,”  and 
that  the  colony  be  given  another  opportunity  of  providing 


8  Journal,  Sept.  9,  1730. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


97 


its  salary  of  £1,000,  clear  of  all  deductions,  to  be  paid  for  the 
time  being.  This  was  declared  to  be  “the  last  Signification 
of  [the]  Royal  Pleasure  .  .  .  upon  that  Subject/’  Then  the 
Board  of  Trade  in  comment  upon  foregoing  procedure 
declared : 

Their  Lordships  are  sorry  to  observe,  that  the  Assembly  have 
not  only  hitherto  refused  to  comply  in  any  sort  with  the  Tenor  of 
that  Instruction,  but  they  seem  likewise  in  some  of  their  Answers 
.  .  .  to  have  forgot  that  Decency  and  Respect  which  is  always 
due  to  their  Governor,  who  has  the  honor  to  Represent  His 
Majesty’s  Person.  .  .  .  The  Consequence  of  which  proceedings 
.  .  .  must  naturally  be  that  His  Majesty  will  find  himself  under 
a  necessity  of  laying  the  Undutiful  behaviour  of  the  Province 
before  the  Legislature  of  Great  Britain,  not  only  in  this  single 
Instance,  but  in  many  others  of  the  same  Nature  and  Tendency, 
whereby  it  manifestly  appears  that  this  Assembly  for  some  years 
past,  have  attempted  by  Unwarrantable  Practices  to  weaken  if 
not  cast  off  the  .  .  .  Dependence  which  all  Colonies  ought  to 
have  on  the  Mother  Country.9 

The  Assembly,  however,  would  grant  no  more  than  a 
temporary  salary,  placing  the  first  amount  at  £3,000.  In 
consideration  of  the  fact  that  former  Governors  were  con¬ 
tent  with  £1,200,  this  sum  may  be  regarded  as  a  bribe  to 
induce  Belcher  to  accept,  thus  violating  his  instructions 
which  required  him  to  accept  only  a  permanent  grant  of 
£1,000  for  himself  and  his  successors.  But  Belcher  steadily 
refused,  while  the  House  rejected  Council  amendments  pro¬ 
posing  permanent  annual  grants,  or  at  least  grants  made 
permanent  during  the  Governor’s  continuance  in  office. 
The  members  were  careful  to  explain  that  their  refusal  to 
comply  with  the  instructions  was  founded,  not  on  disloy¬ 
alty  to  the  King,  but  on  a  solicitude  for  the  good  of  the 
province.10 

9  Journal,  Sept.  9,  1730. 

10  Journal,  Sept.  17,  Oct.  1,  2,  and  27,  and  Dec.  31,  1730. 


98 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


.  In  vain  Belcher  repeatedly  insisted  on  obedience  to  the 
royal  wishes;  similarly  fruitless  were  his  threats  regarding 
danger  to  charter,  and  of  dissolution.  The  Assembly,  “after 
the  most  serious  consideration  of  His  Majesty’s  Royal  In¬ 
structions  for  fixing  a  Salary  on  his  Excellency  and  his 
Successors,”  together  with  “consideration  of  the  Rights 
and  Priviledges  of  the  People,”  refused  to  comply.  They 
were  willing  honorably  to  support  the  King’s  Governor, 
but  not  in  the  manner  directed  by  the  instructions.  Never¬ 
theless,  in  the  several  bills  that  were  attempted,  Governor 
Belcher  seemed  to  read  a  sort  of  triumph,  for  toward  the 
close  of  the  session  he  wrote:  “The  Assembly  had  passed 
an  act,  which,  tho’  it  did  not  come  up  to  the  full  terms  of 
the  instructions,  yet  it  is  going  a  great  way  further  than 
they  have  ever  yet  done.”  11 

The  Lords  of  Trade,  however,  after  reading  the  Assembly 
Journal  did  not  see  much  reason  for  this  optimism;  and 
Belcher,  finally  declaring  that  he  had  no  faith  in  “all  the 
pretences”  to  loyalty  which  they  had  “been  able  to  dress 
up,”  and  in  hopes  of  a  more  compliant  membership,  dis¬ 
solved  the  General  Court  on  Jan.  2,  1731. 12  Thus  ended 
the  first  session.  Harmony  was  not  to  return  during  the 
whole  ten  years  of  his  administration. 

Controversy  continued  throughout  the  next  session,  be¬ 
ginning  with  Belcher’s  opening  address,  in  which  he  urged 
obedience  to  the  instruction  on  the  grounds  that  a  grant  of 
£1,000  per  annum  was  more  economical  than  temporary 
higher  grants.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  Governor’s 
salary  had  by  this  time  been  increased  from  £500  to  £3,000. 
After  the  failure  of  several  drafts,  and  with  conferences  with 

11  Belcher  to  Newcastle,  Dec.  30,  1770.  Cf.  John  Gorham  Palfrey,  History 
of  New  England,  II,  538;  also  Journal,  Oct.  2,  3,  16,  and  28,  Dec.  16  and  29,  1730, 
and  Jan.  1,  1731. 

12  Journal,  Sept.  17,  Oct.  2,  8,  and  17,  1730,  and  Jan.  2,  1731.  Board  of  Trade 
to  Belcher,  Dec.  1,  1730,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  1258.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol. 
916,  pp.  398,  399. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


99 


the  Council  coming  to  naught,  the  House  proposed  sending 
to  the  King  an  address  explaining  the  reasons  for  objection 
to  a  permanent  grant.  The  Council  was  willing  to  join  in 
this,  provided  the  Assembly  first  passed  a  bill  granting  sup¬ 
port  for  a  limited  period,  suggesting  a  ten  year  duration. 
The  Governor’s  patience  exhausted,  Belcher  again  dissolved 
the  General  Court  in  the  hope  of  a  better  spirit  in  a  new 
membership.  According  to  the  instructions,  the  Governor 
should  at  this  juncture  have  gone  to  England,  or  have  sent 
a  substitute  to  report  to  the  ministry  on  the  salary  con¬ 
troversy.  Possibly  through  desire  to  hold  his  office  he  did 
neither,  and  the  affair  was  placed  before  the  King  by  the 
Lords  of  Trade.13 

Likewise  unheeded  were  the  Governor’s  urgings  in  his 
opening  address  to  the  new  Assembly.  A  bill  was  finally 
passed,  granting  £5,400  for  past  services  and  for  support 
of  one  year,  which  latter  the  King  was  requested  to  permit 
Belcher  to  accept.  The  acceptance  was  allowed,  but  an 
additional  instruction  expressly  stated  that  it  was  for  one 
year  only,  and  that  future  payments  were  to  be  settled  by 
a  fixed  grant  to  the  Governor  and  to  his  successors.  When 
the  time,  however,  came  for  making  the  future  payments, 
the  Assembly  chose  to  regard  the  King’s  concession  as  an 
indorsement  of  their  stand,  and  refused  to  deprive  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  their  “just,  rights  and  privileges”  by  complying  with 
the  instruction.14 

The  new  Assembly  also,  in  spite  of  Belcher’s  exhortation, 
would  consent  to  no  more  than  a  temporary  grant  for  one 
year  amounting  to  £3,000,  though  with  a  promise  of  similar 

13  Board  of  Trade  to  Belcher,  July  6,  1731,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  1266. 
I3.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  916,  pp.  419-421.  Journal,  Feb.  10  and  17,  March  3,  12, 
27,  and  31,  and  April  6  and  25,  1731. 

14  Journal,  May  27  and  28,  June  4,  8,  12,  and  18,  and  Dec.  1  and  29,  1731. 
For  portion  of  text  of  address  to  King  see  Journal,  June  29,  1737.  Additional  in¬ 
structions  to  Governor  Belcher  were  issued  Aug.  13,  1731.  See  Transcripts,  Col. 
Soc.,  pp.  1269/.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  324,  Vol.  36,  pp.  282-284. 


100 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


grants  yearly.  This  also  Belcher  received  permission  to 
accept.  Later  on,  in  support  of  their  position,  the  members 
quoted  his  own  words  written  to  the  speaker  while  Belcher 
was  agent  of  the  province: 

From  the  advice  of  the  best  Friends  of  New  England,  ...  [I] 
by  no  means  think  it  prudent,  just  or  reasonable  but  an  infringe¬ 
ment  of  the  Rights  vested  in  the  People  by  the  Royal  Charter 
to  fix  a  Salary  on  a  Governor  by  virtue  of  an  Instruction:  Of 
what  value  is  the  Charter  if  an  Instruction  shall  at  pleasure  take 
away  every  valuable  part  of  it? 15 

After  considerable  further  dispute  Belcher  finally  obtained 
leave  from  year  to  year  to  accept  sums  of  £3,000  annually 
presented  as  salary.  This  concession,  which  involved  a 
virtual  defeat  of  England’s  policy,  was  granted  at  first  for 
one  year  only,  and  in  1735  was  made  general.  Thus  was 
allayed  one  of  the  causes  of  dispute,  but  difficulties  con¬ 
tinued  through  Belcher’s  endeavors  to  have  the  salary 
grants,  which  were  paid  in  bills  of  credit,  approximate  the 
value  of  £1,000  sterling.  Belcher’s  efforts  to  obtain  this 
general  leave  are  clearly  evident  in  the  following  excerpt 
from  one  of  his  letters : 

I  thank  you  for  the  King’s  leave  for  taking  my  money,  which 
is  in  very  handsome  terms.  Yet  if  it  was  possible  &  Will.  Sharp, 
Etc.,  to  obtain  a  general  leave  I  wou’d  be  engag’d  alwayes  to 
allow  him  the  yearly  fees.  Pray,  sound  him  for  then  I  shou’d 
not  run  the  risq.  of  my  life,  not  be  kept  out  of  my  money  a  whole 
year,  as  now  I  am.16 

When,  however,  his  request  that  the  deficits  be  made 
good  proved  in  vain,  a  complaint  to  the  King  brought  the 
order  that  the  Governor’s  salary  must  henceforth  be  £1,000 

15  Journal,  November  17,  in  a  letter  dated  London,  April  25,  1729.  Journal, 
May  26  and  June  1,  2,  and  30,  1732. 

16  Belcher  to  Richard  Partridge,  April  20,  1734,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series 
6,  VII,  734. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


101 


sterling  and  not  paper  money.17  This  order,  as  well  as 
Belcher’s  own  repeated  urgings,  was  consistently  ignored,18 
and  he  was  forced  to  accept  successive  grants  of  £3,000  in 
paper  money,19  and  later,  grants  of  £1,000  and  £1,200  in 
new  tenor  bills.20  The  Assembly  informed  the  Governor 
that  although  they  had,  after  receiving  the  King’s  instruc¬ 
tions  to  pay  Governor  Burnet  a  sum  equal  to  £1,000  sterling, 
raised  the  salary  grant  to  £3,000,  there  had  been  no  intention 
in  this  grant  of  formally  complying  with  the  instruction; 
and  that  because  the  amount  of  the  salary  had  always  been 
determined  by  the  Assembly  and  had  moreover  always  been 
paid,  there  could  therefore  be  no  justice  in  his  claim  for 
£8,000  in  arrears.21  They  requested  also  that  he  make  no 
further  mention  of  a  subject  tending  “to  revive  that  ancient 
Debate,  so  injurious  to  his  Majesty’s  Subjects  here,  and 
their  known  Rights,  which  they  have  always  been  advised 
never  to  give  up.” 22 

Attempts  were  also  made,  but  without  success,  to  pass 
the  salary  appropriation  as  a  rider  in  bills  for  payment  of 
the  members  and  for  supply  of  the  treasury.  The  last 
grant,  made  in  1740  shortly  before  Belcher  went  out  of  office, 
was  £3, 600. 23 

The  Assembly’s  claim  to  the  right  of  auditing  public 
expenditures  also  caused  considerable  dispute.  According 
to  the  instructions,  the  House  was  to  raise  moneys,  and  the 

17  Journal,  April  26,  May  31,  and  June  6,  1733;  April  19,  1734;  April  18  and 
May  30,  1735.  See  also  additional  instructions  to  Governor  Belcher  Dec  11,  1733, 
Jan.  11  and  Nov.  8,  1734,  and  Nov.  7,  1735,  in  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  13,  18, 
1322,  1336,  1385.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  917,  p.  93;  class  324,  Vol.  36,  pp.  431, 
432,  487,  488;  class  5,  Vol.  917,  pp.  149,  150. 

18  Journal,  June  7  and  Dec.  31,  1735;  May  28,  June  3,  Nov.  25  and  26,  1736; 
Feb.  1,  May  27,  June  20,  and  Oct.  14,  1737;  June  14  and  15,  1738;  Jan.  26  and 
June  14,  1739. 

18  Journal,  March  27  and  July  6,  1736;  June  28,  1737. 

20  Journal,  June  14  and  23,  1737;  June  24,  1738. 

21  Journal,  June  19  and  20  and  Oct.  14,  and  19,  1737;  Jan.  26,  1739. 

22  Journal,  Jan.  26,  1739. 

23  Journal,  June  9,  1738;  June  4,  1740;  June  19,  1741. 


102 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Governor,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Council,  was 
to  see  to  their  issuance.  To  the  Assembly  was  permitted 
simply  investigation  as  to  the  purposes  for  which  public 
funds  had  been  utilized.24  This  regulation  was  occasioned 
by  a  complaint  from  the  representatives  in  1729  to  the  effect 
that  Governor  Burnet  was  refusing  approval  of  their  method 
of  providing  supply  for  the  treasury  for  the  current  year, 
i.e.,  by  resolve  instead  of  by  act.  The  terms  of  this  resolve 
reserved  to  the  Assembly  full  right  to  decide  on  the  payment 
of  accounts  even  after  service  had  been  performed,  which 
amounted  to  a  limitation  of  the  power  vested  by  charter  in 
the  Governor,  as  above  described,  for  issuance  of  public 
funds.  Hence  the  royal  instruction  prohibiting,  in  acts  for 
raising  money,  any  clauses  of  specific  determination,  and 
limiting  the  Assembly’s  powTer  to  investigation  of  expendi¬ 
tures  post  factum  only.  In  1731  a  petition  on  this  subject 
from  the  Assembly  was  rejected  by  the  King  on  the  ground 
that  the  representatives  were  reaching  out  for  powers  not 
wielded  by  even  the  House  of  Commons.25  Again  in  1733, 
as  will  be  mentioned  later,  a  second  petition  for  withdrawal 
of  the  instruction  was  even  more  emphatically  refused.26 
This  controversy  in  detail  will  be  described  in  the  following 
paragraphs. 

From  the  very  first,  the  Assembly  insisted  upon  the  right 
to  inspect  and  to  pass  upon  intended  expenditures  before 
payment  was  made,  proposing  also  an  address  to  the  King 
on  the  subject.  Matters  were  not  smoothed  over  when 
Governor  Belcher  bluntly  informed  them  that  in  future  the 
accounts  of  the  province  would  be  passed  upon  and  paid  by 
action  of  the  Governor  and  Council  only.  The  House,  how¬ 
ever,  by  way  of  protection,  persisted  in  inserting  in  appro- 

24  Journal,  March  10,  1731.  See  Instructions  to  Governor  Belcher,  Art.  31, 
Transcripts,  sup.  cit.,  Art.  31. 

26  Report  of  Committee  of  Privy  Council,  May  10,  1733,  Journal,  Aug.  25,  1733. 

26  See  infra,  pp.  291,  293. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


103 


priation  bills  provision  for  specific  application;  and  as  a 
result,  dispute  arose  with  the  Council  also  when  its  con¬ 
currence  was  refused.  In  order  not  to  leave  the  essential 
needs  of  Government  unprovided  for,  the  Assembly  finally 
passed  a  bill  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  and  was 
immediately  dissolved.27 

When  the  new  Assembly  convened  on  May  26,  1731,  the 
struggle  was  renewed.  Supply  bills  were  again  rejected  on 
the  ground  that  they  violated  the  instruction  by  giving  to 
the  Assembly  the  right  of  auditing.  Belcher  refused  a  re¬ 
quest  for  a  recess  because  there  was  still  owing  to  the  people 
of  the  province  £10,000  and  the  treasury  was  yet  empty. 
He  was  therefore  constrained  to  continue  the  session  until 
proper  provision  should  be  made.28  Weeks  of  fruitless  con¬ 
troversy  ensued,  with  the  Assembly  still  refusing  to  yield 
its  position,  the  members  citing  the  example  of  the  British 
House  of  Commons  in  referring  to  the  electors  ‘‘matters  of 
a  new  and  unusual  nature  .  .  .  that  affect  the  Nation.” 
They  decided,  therefore,  to  follow  this  precedent  by  referring 
the  question  to  the  people  in  town  meetings.  To  Governor 
Belcher  they  declared  that  “Restrictions  and  Limitations  as 
to  the  issuing  of  Publick  Money”  were  “just  and  reasonable, 
as  well  as  necessary  for  the  public  Welfare  and  Safety  .  .  . 
and  whatever  Mischiefs  and  Inconveniences  may  happen  to 
the  Province  by  the  Treasury’s  remaining  empty  must  be 
attributed  to  the  Instructions  as  understood  and  improved 
by  the  Governor.”  Pending  the  verdict  of  the  constituents 
a  recess  was  again  requested.29 

This  imputation  that  Belcher  had  interpreted  the  instruc¬ 
tions  to  fit  his  own  case  apparently  irritated  him,  for  he  at 
once  read  to  the  House  the  express  order  that  declared  against 

27  Journal,  March  10,  April  2,  7,  9,  10,  12,  13,  14,  15,  16,  22,  23,  24,  and  25,  1731. 
The  amount  of  support  was  £6,000.  For  instructions  on  this  question,  see  Tran¬ 
scripts,  sup.  cit..  Art.  31. 

28  Journal ,  June  5,  11,  12,  20,  28,  and  30  and  July  7,  9,  20,  and  28,  1731. 

29  Journal,  Aug.  21,  1731;  see  also  ibid.,  Aug.  18,  1731. 


104 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  “unwarrantable  Practice  ...  of  reserving  to  the  .  .  . 
Assembly,  a  power  of  determining  what  accounts  shall  or 
shall  not  be  paid,  even  after  Service  performed”  .  .  .  ,  and 
requiring  that  the  Governor  “take  care  for  the  future,  that 
the  passing  all  Accounts  for  Payment,  and  the  issuing  all 
Monies  so  raised,  or  Bills  of  Credit,  be  left  to  Our  Governour 
.  .  .  with  the  Advice  and  Consent  of  Our  Council,  according 
to  their  Charter.” 30  Belcher  added  also  the  warning  that 
the  present  dispute  was  in  effect  a  quarrel  with  the  King 
himself.  In  the  next  session,  which  opened  Dec.  1,  1731, 
the  controversy  continued.  Belcher  still  refused  to  violate 
his  instruction  by  approving  the  supply  bills  in  the  manner 
in  which  they  were  formulated;  the  House  on  its  part  re¬ 
fused  to  pass  them  in  accordance  with  the  instruction,  laying 
the  responsibility  for  the  consequent  empty  treasury  on  the 
Council  and  the  Governor,  who  had  rejected  every  bill  that 
was  offered.  In  the  “Referendum”  only  two  towns  had 
advised  compliance  with  the  instruction,  and  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  wrere  therefore  more  determined  than  ever  not  to 
obey,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  their  address  to  the  King 
requesting  withdrawal  of  the  instruction  was  not  being 
favorably  considered.31  Consent,  in  their  estimation,  was 
“much  the  same  as  to  agree  that  the  Governor  and  Council 
should  tax  the  people.”  They  were  therefore  unwilling  to 
“prostitute  the  Money  in  the  Treasury  to  the  unaccountable 
and  uncontrollable  Will  and  Pleasure  of  the  Governor  and 
Four  of  his  Council  to  be  pick'd  out  of  Twenty -Eight.” 

We  shall  act  neither  like  Englishmen  nor  Rational  Creatures,  to 
comply  with  the  Instruction,  and  put  our  Money  into  the  Treas¬ 
ury,  to  be  drawn  out  for  we  know  not  what,  when  it  is  drawn  out 
tho’  never  so  unreasonably,  we  can  have  no  Restitution  or  Relief.32 

30  Journal ,  Aug.  25,  1731. 

31  Journal,  Dec.  14,  15,  16,  24,  and  29,  1731;  cf.  also  letter  from  province  agent, 
quoted  by  Belcher,  ibid.,  Feb.  2,  1732. 

32  Journal,  Jan.  20,  1732;  see  also  Feb.  2,  1732.  Seven  Councillors  constituted 
a  quorum,  of  whom  four  made  a  majority. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


105 


The  Governor,  with  a  repeated  warning  that  such  pro¬ 
ceedings  were  tantamount  to  positive  defiance  of  the  King, 
observed  that  it  would  “look  mean  and  dishonourable  in 
the  Eye  of  the  whole  World  that  [they]  had  taken  effectual 
care  for  the  Payment  of  [their  own]  daily  service,  .  .  .  but 
have  for  near  Twelve  Months  past  entirely  neglected  the 
Payment  of  all  the  Garrisons,”  from  which  complaints  were 
coming  that  the  men  wTere  freezing,  and  their  wives  and 
children  on  the  verge  of  starvation. 

Certainly  it  cannot  be  thought  Reasonable  that  they  and  all 
others  must  be  kept  out  of  their  just  Dues  till  you  can  perswade 
his  Majesty  to  say  .  .  .  That  what  he  has  directed  to  in  supply 
of  the  Treasury,  Is  inconsistent  with  the  Charter  .  .  .  when  he  has 
already  said  that  what  you  desire  is  expressly  contrary  to  it.33 

Belcher  then  declared  his  belief  that  the  purpose  of  the 
Assembly  m  raising  these  difficulties  was  simply  to  gain 
control  of  powers  that  by  charter  were  expressly  reserved  to 
the  Governor  and  Council.  A  series  of  prorogations  followed, 
and  the  session  came  to  an  end  by  dissolution  on  March  31, 
1732. 34 

Meanwhile,  Governor  Belcher  had  received  additional  in¬ 
structions  in  confirmation  of  the  previous  ones  concerning 
the  treasury  supply,  and  setting  aside  the  petition  in  the 
Assembly’s  recent  address.  These  he  announced  in  his  open¬ 
ing  address  to  the  new  Assembly  on  June  1,  1732,  again 
urging  compliance.  A  bill  for  £50,000  was  soon  passed,  but 
in  the  old  manner,  and  Belcher  therefore  refused  consent. 
The  House,  after  examining  the  treasurer’s  accounts  and 
remonstrating  that  many  payments  were  being  made  on  the 
warrant  of  Governor  and  Council  only,  complained  that 
compliance  with  the  instructions  meant  loss  of  rightful 
powers.  From  the  fact  that  the  Council,  which  by  charter 
was  the  official  adviser  of  the  Governor,  had  concurred  in  the 

33  Journal ,  Feb.  2,  1732.  34  Journal ,  Feb.  2,  1732. 


106 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


disputed  supply  bill,  the  House  argued  that  Belcher  ought 
not  to  reject  the  implied  advice  to  give  his  consent.  The 
power  granted  by  charter  to  the  Assembly  to  concur  in  the 
making  of  all  laws  was  construed  to  include  also  the  power 
to  make  laws  regulating  the  method  of  meeting  public  ex¬ 
penditures;  while  the  power  of  disposal  of  public  moneys, 
which  the  charter  conferred  upon  the  Governor  and  Council, 
was  interpreted  by  the  Assembly  as  having  effect  only  after 
the  Assembly  had  passed  upon  all  expenditures.  With  these 
arguments  the  representatives  also  stated  that  their  purpose 
in  insisting  upon  the  auditing  privilege  was  to  prevent  further 
misapplication  of  public  funds.  Precedent  was  also  appealed 
to;  and  as  to  relief  for  unpaid  servants  of  the  government, 
this,  they  said,  would  come  when  the  King  withdrew  the 
objectionable  instructions.35 

After  an  adjournment  of  several  months  36  Belcher  again 
reminded  the  members  of  the  empty  treasury,  of  the  conse¬ 
quent  injustice  to  public  creditors,  and  of  his  determination 
to  carry  out  the  royal  instructions.  With  but  one  dissenting 
vote,  the  Assembly  refused  to  comply  and  thereby  to  de¬ 
stroy  the  “Powers  and  Privileges  granted  ...  in  the  Royal 
Charter.”  There  had  been  ample  opportunity  during  the 
recess  for  the  representatives  to  determine  the  mind  of  their 
constituents,  and  the  members  in  consequence  became  even 
more  determined  to  insist  upon  their  alleged  right.  On 
the  Governor  himself,  by  reason  of  his  rejection  of  frequent 
supply  bills,  was  laid  the  responsibility  for  the  empty  treas¬ 
ury.  They  noted  also,  and  complained,  that  in  his  censures 
Belcher  addressed  the  House  only;  whereas  the  Council  also 
had  concurred  in  the  rejected  bills.  And  they  quoted  from 
his  own  letters,  written  while  he  was  yet  agent  for  the 
province,  in  which  he  advised  “in  the  strongest  and  plainest 
terms  .  .  .  the  vast  hazards,  damages,  and  inconveniences 

36  Journal,  June  1,  9,  15,  27,  and  30,  1732. 

36  From  July  7  to  Nov.  1,  1732.  See  Journal  at  these  dates. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


107 


to  which  the  Governor  had  exposed  the  King’s  Province  and 
all  the  good  People  therein,  by  not  giving  his  Assent  to  the 
Bill  for  Supply  of  the  Treasury.”  37  This  was  compared  with 
the  words  of  his  last  address,  in  which  he  was  determined  to 
refuse  assent  “to  any  other  supply  of  the  Treasury  than 
what  his  Majesty  has  directed  to  and  said  is  agreeable  to  the 
Charter,”  and  which  he  had  “always  truly  and  uprightly 
thought  to  be  so.”  38 

Once  more  it  was  decided  to  send  to  the  King  an  address 
setting  forth,  in  connection  with  the  royal  instructions,  the 
rights  granted  by  the  charter;  and  in  the  event  of  failure  of 
this  address,  still  another  to  the  House  of  Commons,  pe¬ 
titioning  action  by  that  body  in  favor  of  withdrawal  of  the 
instructions.39 

Shortly  afterward  an  additional  supply  bill  was  drafted, 
but  “for  certain  Ends  and  Purposes.”  Belcher  therefore 
again  urged  compliance,  reminding  the  House  of  yet  another 
portion  of  his  letters  written  while  agent,  in  which  he  had 
advised  against  insisting  on  the  right  now  in  dispute.  He 
also  intimated  that  the  support  denied  by  the  Assembly 
might  yet  be  granted  by  the  King  himself;  and  that  the 
contemplated  address  to  the  House  of  Commons  would  be 
highly  offensive,  inasmuch  as  it  practically  constituted  the 
Commons  as  judges  of  the  actions  of  the  Crown.40 

A  further  adjournment  followed,  after  which  Governor 
Belcher  again  tried  to  secure  obedience  to  the  instructions; 
but  the  Assembly  replied  by  expressing  resentment  at  the 
insinuations  of  discord  and  strife  contained  in  a  previous  ad¬ 
dress.  They  repudiated  these  charges  by  reminding  Belcher 
that  in  all  proceedings  of  the  House  on  the  supply  question, 
the  votes  in  opposition  to  the  instructions  had  been  almost 
unanimous;  hence  that  there  was  not  “the  least  lisp  of  Strife 

37  Journal,  Nov.  18,  1732;  see  also  ibid.,  Nov.  2,  8,  and  17,  1732. 

38  Journal,  Nov.  18,  1732. 

39  Journal,  Dec.  15,  1732. 

40  Journal,  Dec.  16,  1732,  and  Jan.  4,  1733. 


108 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


or  Contention,  for  a  wonderful  Harmony  and  a  good  Agree¬ 
ment  among  the  members  of  the  House  appeared  from  first 
to  last.”  41  Still  maintaining  that  the  charter  had  precedence 
of  authority  over  the  royal  instructions,  the  representatives 
reasoned  that  the  Governor  should  not  permit  his  instruc¬ 
tions  to  interfere  with  assent  to  bills  for  supply  of  the  treas¬ 
ury.  They  determined  also  to  send  no  more  petitions  asking 
leave  for  the  Governor  to  give  assent,  arguing  that  such 
petitions  implied  subordination  of  the  charter,  and  were 
therefore  44 destructive  of  the  Liberties  of  the  People.”  And 
to  pass  bills  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  would  be 
44 To  basely  betray  their  Trust,  recede  from  the  Sentiments 
given  them  by  their  Principals,  act  against  the  Conscience 
of  Light  and  Reason;  and  bring  upon  themselves  the  scorn, 
hatred  and  infamy  of  all  Men  that  are  Lovers  of  Virtue; 
and  in  so  doing  we  should  give  a  wound  incurable  to  our 
Constitution.42  Nor  in  this  attitude  could  they  see  any 
implications  of  disloyalty;  they  felt,  on  the  contrary,  that 
true  loyalty  demanded  opposition  to,  rather  than  compliance 
with  royal  instructions  that  would  44 destroy  their  Liberty, 
which  is  the  Gift  of  God  and  Nature.”  Referring  then  to 
agent  Belcher’s  zeal  in  opposition  to  the  prerogative,  they 
reminded  him  that  “the  Cause  and  Interest  of  the  People  is 
the  same  now  as  then,  tho’  your  Excellency’s  State  and  Con¬ 
dition  is  much  altered;”  also  that  he  did  not  then  “deem 
the  Noncompliance  of  the  House  with  His  Majesty’s  Royal 
Instructions,  Disloyal,  Undutiful,  or  Disrespectful  to  His 
Majesty;”  and  openly  they  accused  him  of  betraying  his 
trust  for  a  price : 

When  your  Excellency  (acting  as  agent)  at  the  Committee  of 
Council  (at  Whitehall)  gave  in  as  you  did  on  the  Article  of  the 
Treasury,  the  Death  of  Governour  Burnet  had  reached  you,  and 

41  Journal,  Jan.  4  to  April  4,  1733  (adjournment),  and  April  10,  1733. 

42  Journal,  April  11,  1733. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


109 


it’s  very  probable  at  that  very  juncture,  Your  Excellency  had 
some  expectation  of  His  Majesty’s  Royal  Commission  for  this 
Government.43 

After  which  came  the  Assembly’s  statement  of  its  claims  in 
the  dispute: 

All  that  this  or  former  Assemblies  have  endeavored  is,  to  pre¬ 
serve  the  Powers  granted  by  Charter  to  the  General  Court,  in 
making  Laws  as  well  for  the  Support  of  the  Government,  as  any 
other  Affair;  that  when  their  Constituents’  Money  is  brought  into 
the  Treasury,  good  and  wholesome  Laws  might  be  enacted,  con¬ 
taining  Restrictions,  Limitations  and  Rules,  in  observance  of  which, 
the  Money  would  be  issued  and  disposed  of  by  your  Excellency 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  His  Majesty’s  Council,  for  the  Ends 
and  Purposes  for  which  the  People  were  taxed.  This  is  a  Liberty 
His  Majesty’s  Colonies  and  Plantations  are  in  the  Use  and  En¬ 
joyment  of,  notwithstanding  the  strong  and  repeated  Efforts  some 
of  them  have  of  late  met  with,  to  perswade  and  induce  them  to 
give  it  up.44 

In  spite  of  concerted  opposition,  Governor  Belcher  de¬ 
feated  a  further  attempt  to  pass  a  bill  in  violation  of  the  in¬ 
structions.  The  last  petition  of  the  House  to  the  King  was 
also  soon  afterward  set  aside,  “in  such  strong  terms”  said 
the  Governor,  “as  leaves  no  colour  for  suspending  the  supply 
of  the  treasury.”  The  proceedings  in  general  met  with  strong 
censure  from  the  Privy  Council,  which  declared  that  the 
Assembly’s  attitude: 

Evidently  shows  that  design  is  to  assume  to  themselves  the 
Executive  Power  of  the  Government  .  .  .  ,  and  has  a  direct 
tendency  to  throw  off  their  dependence  on  Great  Britain.  .  .  . 
And  ...  if  the  said  Assembly  shall  still  persist  in  their  Refusal 
to  supply  the  Treasury  of  the  Province,  so  that  neither  the  Soldiers 
can  be  paid,  the  Fortifications  be  kept  up,  the  Dignity  of  your 
Majesty’s  Government  supported,  nor  the  Security  of  the  Province 


43  Journal,  April  10,  1733. 


44  Journal,  April  10,  1733. 


110 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


provided  for,  they  will  be  answerable  for  all  the  Consequences  of 
their  own  ill-Conduct.45 

The  adverse  decision  above  referred  to  was  regarded  by  the 
House  as  a  divine  visitation,  and  Belcher  was  requested, 
though  in  vain,  to  appoint  a  day  of  “publick  prayer  and 
humiliation.”  By  this  defeat  was  greatly  aggravated  the 
obstinacy  of  the  House;  and  the  Governor’s  difficulty  in 
handling  simultaneously  the  controversies  in  progress  over 
salary  and  paper  money  questions  was  considerably  in¬ 
creased.  After  months  of  further  delay  and  dispute,  a  supply 
bill  was  finally  agreed  upon  toward  the  end  of  1733. 46 

Incidental  to  this  struggle  over  supply  of  the  treasury 
there  existed  difficulties  concerning  provision  for  upkeep 
and  improvement  of  the  defenses  of  the  province.  Except 
in  rare  cases  the  House  refused  to  provide  even  for  necessities, 
such  as  repairs  for  fortifications,  salaries  for  the  soldiers,  etc. 
Some  action  was  finally  taken,  however,  when  various  towns 
sent  in  petitions  on  this  head,  and  it  was  then  determined  to 
ask  the  King  to  assist  by  granting  military  supplies.  Until 
the  very  end  of  Belcher’s  term  disputes  upon  this  subject 
were  in  progress.  His  repeated  appeals  fell  on  deaf  ears  until 
almost  the  close  of  his  administration  when  the  war  against 
Spain  forced  the  Assembly  to  co-operation.47  Noteworthy 
controversy  on  the  subject  occurred  early  in  1741,  when  the 
Governor  rejected  a  bill  providing  military  repairs  on  Castle 
William.  This  measure  reserved  to  the  Assembly  the  right 
to  determine  the  person  or  persons  who  would  purchase 
supplies  and  hire  the  workmen  —  details  which  Belcher  de- 

45  Report  of  Committee  of  Privy  Council  to  King,  May  10,  1733.  See  Journal, 
Aug.  25,  1733. 

46  Journal,  Aug.  16  and  25,  Oct.  9  to  26,  and  Nov.  2,  1733. 

47  Journal,  Nov.  1  and  6,  1733;  Jan.  29,  Feb.  6,  23,  27,  and  28,  April  10,  11, 
16,  and  17,  May  31  and  June  14,  1734;  May  28,  1735;  Feb.  3  and  Nov.  25, 
1736;  Feb.  3,  1737;  Nov.  29,  1738;  May  31  and  Sept.  19,  1739;  May  29,  June 
23  and  30,  July  3,  9  and  11,  Aug.  22  and  29,  and  Sept.  6,  1740. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


111 


dared  were  vested  in  the  Governor.  In  vain  the  Assembly 
requested  him  to  deliver  them  from  the  dilemma  of  either 
“parting  with  their  ancient  Liberty  and  Usage  in  this  Affair,” 
or  of  leaving  the  province  defenseless,  which  latter  they  con¬ 
sidered  a  “truly  shocking”  state  of  affairs.  But  pending 
sanction  of  the  King,  Belcher  refused  to  yield.  An  adjourn¬ 
ment  intervened,  after  which  the  representatives  intimated 
that  if  the  King  refused  to  approve,  the  Assembly  would 
refuse  to  raise  money  for  defense.  To  Belcher’s  further 
recommendation  for  provisioning  Castle  William  they  re¬ 
plied  that  nothing  would  be  done  except  in  their  own  manner. 
The  General  Court  was  dissolved  soon  after,  and  the  matter 
did  not  come  up  again  until  the  arrival  of  Governor  Belcher’s 
successor,  William  Shirley.48 

Meanwhile,  trouble  over  the  general  supply  of  the  treasury 
had  continued.  As  has  been  noted,  the  custom  had  become 
practically  established  of  granting  the  supply  by  issuing  bills 
of  credit  to  be  drawn  in  at  a  future  date.  By  the  royal  in¬ 
structions,  however,  was  forbidden  the  issue  of  any  bills  to 
be  current  after  1741.  Hence,  with  the  various  sums  already 
due  in  that  year,  the  Assembly  hesitated  to  burden  the 
province  by  further  issues  with  the  same  date  for  redemption. 
The  only  expedient  was  to  extend  the  issue  beyond  1741; 
and  it  was  this  that  Belcher,  in  obedience  to  his  instructions, 
opposed,  and  which  therefore  aggravated  the  already  dis¬ 
turbed  situation.  After  the  Council  had  failed  to  concur  in 
one  supply  bill,  the  House  attempted  to  force  its  position  by 
including  in  the  supply  bill  certain  other  indispensably  neces¬ 
sary  items.  This  method  of  procedure  was  in  itself  contrary 
to  the  instructions,  and  Belcher  again  issued  a  veto.  But  the 
Assembly  maintained  its  stand,  refusing  to  yield  even  after 
Belcher  had  cited,  by  way  of  reminder,  the  strongly  phrased 
refusal  of  their  petition  in  this  matter  to  the  House  of 
Commons: 

48  Journal,  Jan.  8  and  April  2,  6,  7,  and  25,  1741. 


112 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Resolved,  That  the  Complaint  contained  in  this  Memorial  and 
Petition,  is  frivolous  and  groundless,  an  high  Insult  upon  His 
Majesty’s  Government,  and  tending  to  shake  off  the  Dependence 
of  the  said  Colony  upon  this  Kingdom  to  which  by  Law  and  Right 
they  are  and  ought  to  be  subject. 

Ordered ,  That  the  said  Memorial  and  Petition  be  rejected.49 

In  rejoinder  appeared  the  following  entry  in  the  Journal , 
praying  that:  “God  would  be  pleased  to  give  such  Direction 
to  the  General  Court,  that  they  may  be  the  happy  Instru¬ 
ments  under  God  of  delivering  this  People  in  some  Measure 
from  their  great  Distress  and  Danger.”  50 

For  the  same  reason,  supply  bills  that  were  passed  by  the 
new  Assembly  of  1741  also  failed;  and  when  Belcher  re¬ 
linquished  the  government  to  William  Shirley  the  problem 
was  still  unsolved.51 

On  the  question  of  bills  of  credit  also,  there  was  con¬ 
siderable  disturbance.  Owing  to  the  scarcity  as  well  as  the 
variety  of  currency,  paper  money  was  regarded  as  a  necessary 
recourse.  Soon,  however,  in  order  to  meet  the  public  debts, 
issues  had  increased  to  such  an  extent  that  paper  money 
became  practically  the  only  method  of  payment.  Hence  the 
instructions  to  Governor  Shute  in  1720  requiring  in  all  paper 
money  bills,  with  the  exception  of  those  for  raising  revenue 
to  support  the  Government,  a  suspending  clause.  This  ex¬ 
ception  was  utilized  by  the  representatives  as  an  excuse  for 
further  issues,  with  consequent  increase  in  the  amount  of 
paper  money  in  the  province,  and  a  drop  of  one  third  in  its 
value.  As  a  result,  Governor  Burnet  was  instructed  in  1727 
not  to  assent  to  any  issue,  except  with  a  suspending  clause. 
When  Governor  Belcher  encountered  the  consequent  diffi¬ 
culty  of  obtaining  supply  for  the  treasury,  he  requested  as 

49  Journal,  Oct.  9,  1739. 

50  Journal,  June  4,  1741;  see  also  ibid.,  June  1-14,  and  Dec.  28,  1738;  Jan.  3-6, 
June  28,  and  July  6  and  11,  1739;  March  14,  1740. 

51  Journal,  June  14  and  23,  July  3,  and  Nov.  22,  1740;  Jan.  9,  1741. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


113 


the  only  means  of  securing  the  annual  supply,  permission  to 
assent  to  further  issues.  This  was  granted  for  amounts  not 
exceeding  £30,000  and  intended  solely  for  support  of  the 
Government.  The  instructions  required  also  that  he  take 
care  that  bills  then  outstanding  be  punctually  redeemed.52 
Belcher  therefore  refused  to  approve  any  new  issues  until 
the  old  ones  had  been  redeemed.  The  Council  also  made 
trouble  by  non-concurring  a  bill  for  £50,000  and  by  a  pro¬ 
posed  address  to  the  King  petitioning  withdrawal  of  the 
instructions.  Despite  the  instructions,  attempts  were  twice 
made  to  pass  the  £50,000  issue,  but  Belcher  firmly  refused 
on  the  grounds  that  the  bills  were  intended  for  supply  of  the 
treasury,  and  in  a  manner  prohibited  by  the  instructions. 
The  Assembly  remained  obdurate,  however,  refusing  to 
grant  supply  in  any  form  that  would  deprive  the  members 
of  power  to  audit  expenditures.53 

In  May,  1732,  Belcher  announced  the  King’s  rejection  of 
the  Assembly’s  petition  for  withdrawal  of  the  instruction 
limiting  paper  money  issues  to  £30,000.  But  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  were  set  upon  a  bill  for  issuing  £50,000  and  after 
further  discussion  decided  to  address  the  King,  again  setting 
forth  as  in  the  case  of  the  treasury  supply  the  rights  granted 
in  the  charter,  and  explaining  the  implied  interference  with 
these  rights  as  enjoined  by  the  royal  instructions.  In  the 
event  of  failure  of  this  address,  the  Commons  were  then  to 
be  petitioned  to  act  in  behalf  of  withdrawal  of  the  instruc¬ 
tions.  When  this  petition  also  had  been  refused,  so  keen 
was  the  disappointment  of  the  House  that  the  affair  was  re¬ 
garded  as  a  mark  of  divine  displeasure  and  the  Governor 

62  Instructions  to  Governor  Belcher,  May  8,  1730.  Articles  16,  18,  Transcripts, 
Col.  Soc.,  pp.  1198,  1199.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  916,  pp.  276,  327;  see  also  Report 
of  Committee  of  Privy  Council  to  the  King,  May  10,  1733,  in  Journal,  Aug.  25, 
1733.  Copy  of  the  instructions  is  also  contained  ibid.,  Dec.  16,  1730. 

63  Journal ,  April  2  and  6,  June  25  and  29,  July  2,  6,  7,  9,  13  and  16,  and  Dec.  24, 
1731.  Attempts  to  pass  50,000  issues  were  made  on  July  2  and  Dec.  24,  1731;  see 
also  ibid.,  Jan.  7  and  20,  1732. 


114 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


was  requested,  as  above  described,  to  appoint  a  day  of  public 
prayer  and  humiliation.54  After  months  of  resistance,  and 
the  failure  of  an  attempt  to  pass  an  issue  exceeding  £75,000, 
the  House  finally  drafted  a  bill  in  accordance  with  the  instruc¬ 
tions.55  Trouble  continued,  however,  when  the  Assembly 
paid  no  heed  to  Governor  Belcher’s  reminder  of  the  constant 
depreciation  in  the  value  of  bills  of  credit  and  his  repeated 
suggestions  for  measures  of  stabilization.56  From  this  time 
the  Governor’s  greatest  difficulties  lay  in  his  efforts  to  secure 
standardization  of  value,57  to  prevent  issues  in  excess  of 
£30,000,  the  amount  permitted  by  his  instructions,58  and 
to  persuade  redemption  of  outstanding  bills.59 

In  his  efforts  to  secure  redemption  of  outstanding  bills,  as 
required  by  instructions,  Belcher  had  considerable  difficulty 
and  received  in  1737  an  additional  instruction  reminding  him 
that  in  the  space  of  only  seven  months  there  had  been  three 
issues  of  more  than  £106,000  in  bills  of  credit  which  ought 
already  to  have  been  redeemed.  He  was  therefore  strictly 
enjoined  to  consent  to  no  further  issues  except  for  the  annual 
support  of  the  Government,  and  then  not  in  excess  of 
£30,000.60 

In  1740  came  still  further  instructions  canceling  the 
usual  exception  regarding  issues  not  exceeding  £30,000,  and 
forbidding  his  assent  to  any  issues  without  a  suspending 
clause.  Immediately  the  House  requested  a  day  of  prayer, 

54  Journal ,  May  26,  June  9,  July  5,  Nov.  2  and  17,  and  Dec.  15,  1732;  Aug.  16, 

1733. 

55  Journal ,  Oct.  3,  25,  and  30,  and  Nov.  7,  1733;  May  31,  June  27,  and  July  4, 

1734. 

56  Journal,  Nov.  22  and  Dec.  23,  1734;  May  30,  July  5,  and  Dec.  27,  1735; 
March  19,  1736. 

57  Journal,  Nov.  25,  1736;  June  1,  1738;  May  31,  1739. 

58  Journal,  July  5,  1736;  Jan.  5,  1737;  Jan.  8,  10,  11,  12,  and  13,  June  28,  and 
July  5  and  11,  1739;  March  14,  19,  and  25,  and  Dec.  19,  1740. 

69  Journal,  Jan.  13,  July  5,  and  Dec.  5,  18,  20,  and  26,  1739;  March  14,  1740. 

60  Additional  instructions  to  Governor  Belcher,  April  30,  1737,  Transcripts, 
Col.  Soc.,  pp.  1409,  1410.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  324,  Vol.  37,  pp.  56-58. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


115 


following  the  request  by  an  attempt  to  pass  an  issue  of 
£110, 000. 61  On  the  last  day  of  the  session  that  ended  Jan. 
8,  1741,  Belcher,  in  rejecting  this  £110,000  bill  declared  that 
the  representatives  “very  well  knew  it  could  not  pass  into 
a  Law;  it  being  made  in  the  Face  of  several  of  His  Majesty’s 
Royal  Orders.”  And  he  continued:  “How  vainly  are  you 
now  struggling  to  avoid  His  Majesty’s  Directions  as  to  the 
Supply  of  the  Treasury,  which  you  will  doubtless  find,  must 
finally  take  place.” 

These  orders  from  the  King  prohibited,  except  with  a  sus¬ 
pending  clause,  even  the  emission  of  the  previously  allowed 
sum  of  £30,000.  Perhaps  owing  to  the  consequent  difficulties 
of  securing  paper  money  issues,  the  House  began  to  look 
with  more  favor  on  what  was  known  as  the  Land  Bank 
scheme,  to  which  formerly  the  members  had  been  greatly 
opposed.  At  any  rate,  about  this  time  Belcher  was  censuring 
them  for  not  joining  the  Council  in  measures  to  suppress  the 
project,  but  seeming  rather  “to  Countenance  this  iniquitous 
Contrivance  and  Combination.”  62  This  Land  Bank  affair 
resulted  from  the  co-operation  of  certain  merchants  of  Boston, 
who  in  order  to  provide  a  medium  of  trade  formed  a  banking 
corporation  and  issued  bills.  Later,  for  the  same  purpose, 
and  during  the  period  now  under  discussion,  the  so-called 
Land  Bank  Company  of  800  members  was  formed  with 
plans  of  issuing  £600,000.  The  opposition  of  Governor 
Belcher  and  of  many  others  provoked  all  but  a  revolu¬ 
tion  in  the  colony.  This  period  was  one  of  crisis  in  the 
history  of  Massachusetts,  furnishing  to  the  leaders  no 
inconsiderable  part  of  their  training  in  revolutionary 
policies.63 

In  reply  to  Belcher’s  reminder  that  the  King  himself,  in 

01  Board  of  Trade  to  Belcher,  Aug.  5,  1740,  Transcripts ,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  15,  1 6/f. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  900,  fos.  19,  20;  see  also  Journal,  Nov.  26  and  29,  and  Dec. 
19,  1740. 

62  Journal,  Jan.  9,  1741. 

63  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  6,  VII,  369. 


116 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  person  of  the  royal  Governor,  was  virtually  present  in 
the  General  Court,  and  to  his  suggestion  of  consequent 
obedience  to  the  royal  instructions,  the  representatives  ob¬ 
served  that  “for  that  very  Reason  no  doubt  it  is,  that  the 
royal  Charter  gives  full  Power  to  the  Governor  and  to  other 
Branches  of  the  Court  to  render  effectual  their  Laws  without 
Suspension .” 64 

Meanwhile  the  hostile  party  was  endeavoring  to  affect 
Belcher’s  removal.65  Partly  through  the  intense  opposition 
resulting  from  his  active  disapprobation  of  the  Land  Bank 
scheme  these  intrigues  were  successful.  As  the  Governor 
himself  wrote,  “  the  Land  Bank  does  .  .  .  affect  every  affair 
in  the  Assembly,  and  throughout  the  province.”  Its  sup¬ 
porters  were  apparently  prepared  to  defy  even  Parliamentary 
procedure  against  it: 

I  assure  you  the  concerned  openly  declare  they  defye  any  act 
of  Parliament  to  be  able  to  do  it.  They  are  grown  so  brassy  & 
hardy  as  to  be  now  combining  in  a  body  to  raise  a  rebellion,  and 
the  day  set  for  their  coming  to  this  town  is  at  the  Election  (27th 
instant),  and  their  Treasurer,  I  am  told,  is  in  the  bottom  of  the 
design,  and  I  doubt  it  not.  I  have  this  day  sent  the  Sherriffe  and 
his  officers  to  apprehend  some  of  the  heads  of  the  conspirators,  so 
you  see  we  are  becoming  ripe  for  a  smarter  sort  of  government. 
What  the  act  of  Parliament  will  be,  respecting  this  vile,  wicked 
projection,  I  can’t  tell,  but  if  it  be  no  better  than  the  bill  I  have 
seen,  it  will  by  no  means  answer  the  end.  The  common  people 
here  are  taught  by  their  advisers  to  believe  they  are  pretty  much 
out  of  the  reach  of  the  government  at  home;  nay,  our  Assembly 
are  sometimes  made  to  think  by  their  leaders  that  they  are  as  big 
as  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain,  but  surely  as  occasions  require, 
I  can’t  help  thinking  we  shall  alwayes  to  our  loss  and  cost  find 
otherwise.66 

64  Journal,  April  2,  1741.  (Italics  inserted.) 

66  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  6,  VII,  pp.  222^/f.,  263,  297,  351, 
402,  and  passim. 

66  Ibid.,  p.  388. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


117 


At  the  same  time  Belcher  thus  wrote:  “I  expect  no  supply 
of  the  treasury  this  year,  no  debts  to  be  paid,  no  government 
to  be  supported  or  defended.”  The  “honour”  of  the  Massa¬ 
chusetts  Government  he  declared  he  “wouldn’t  trust  for  an 
old  pair  of  shoes.”67 

Two  weeks  later  the  Assembly  newly  elected  for  1741 
convened.68  At  one  stroke  Belcher  negatived  thirteen  of  the 
twenty-eight  Councillors  because  of  their  connection  with 
the  Land  Bank  venture;  and  on  the  same  day,  before  the 
Assembly  had  begun  to  function,  he  dissolved  the  General 
Court.  His  address  was,  in  part,  as  follows: 

Gentlemen  of  the  House  of  Representatives , 

The  management  of  the  elections  made  yesterday,  discover  to 
me  so  much  of  the  inclination  of  your  house  to  support  the  fraudu¬ 
lent,  pernicious  scheme  commonly  called  the  Land  Bank,  con¬ 
demned  at  home  by  his  Majesty  and  both  Houses  of  Parliament 
of  Great  Britain;  that  I  judge  it  derogatory  to  the  King’s  honor 
and  service,  and  consistent  with  the  peace  and  welfare  of  this 
people,  that  you  sit  any  longer  in  General  Assembly,  .  .  ,69 

Before  the  meeting  of  the  next  Assembly,  July  8,  1741, 
news  arrived  of  the  appointment  in  Governor  Belcher’s  stead 
of  William  Shirley.70  Keenly  disappointed  at  what  he 
termed  the  “melancholy  tydings,”  Belcher  wrote: 

I  must  needs  own,  it  gives  me  a  terrible  shock,  and  the  more  so, 
when  I  consider  how  faithfull  I  have  been  to  the  King;  and  after 
all  to  be  turn’d  out  without  fault  or  complaint  I  think  must  be  a 
great  discouragement  to  all  faithfull  servants;  but  I  plainly  see 
truth  and  justice  must  never  stand  in  the  way  of  the  ease  &  con- 
veniency  of  great  men.71 

67  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  6,  VII,  p.  388. 

68  Journal,  May  27,  1741. 

69  Journal,  May  27  and  28,  1741. 

70  Ibid.,  July  8,  1741.  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  6,  VII,  402. 
At  this  time  New  Hampshire  was  separated  from  joint  government  with  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  and  Benning  Wentworth  appointed  as  Independent  Governor. 

71  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  G,  VII,  402. 


118 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Belcher’s  last  important  act  in  this  controversy  was 
the  rejection  on  July  31,  1741,  of  a  bill  for  issuing 
£200,000.  Soon  afterward  the  new  Governor,  William 
Shirlev,  met  the  General  Court; 72  thereafter  Belcher’s 
term  became  in  the  minds  of  the  colonists  only  another 
addition  to  an  increasingly  long  list  of  disagreeable  mem¬ 
ories. 

The  chief  points  of  controversy  under  Governor  Belcher 
have  now  been  described,  and  in  general  regarded  the  supply 
of  the  treasury,  paper  money  issues,  and  payment  of  salary. 
Other  disputes  of  minor  importance  were  occasioned  by  the 
Assembly’s  effort  to  increase  membership  through  erection 
of  new  towns;73  in  an  attempt  at  self-adjournment,74  and  to 
elect  in  seven  successive  years  the  attorney -general,  an 
officer  appointed  by  the  King.75  Considerable  trouble  was 
caused  also  by  the  Land  Bank  affair,76  by  the  Assembly’s 
control  of  the  province  agent;77  the  attempt  to  enlarge  the 
salaries  of  members,78  the  Governor’s  disapproval  of  the 
speaker,79  the  appointment  of  committees  of  the  house  to 
function  outside  of  sessions,80  the  question  of  military  re¬ 
pairs  and  especially  defense  of  Fort  Pemaquid  and  of  Castle 

72  See  Journal ,  entries  for  July  31  and  Aug.  17,  1741. 

73  Journal,  May  28,  June  3,  11,  12,  17,  18,  19,  23,  24,  25,  and  29,  July  14  and  15 
and  Dec.  18  and  23,  1731;  Jan.  13  and  June  14,  15,  and  20,  1732;  Feb.  11  and  25, 
March  4,  and  June  21,  1734;  Dec.  25,  1737;  Jan.  5  and  June  15,  1738;  June  7, 
1740,  and  passim. 

74  Journal,  July  13  and  16,  1731. 

75  Ibid.,  July  4,  1732;  June  22,  1733;  June  16,  1734;  June  28,  1735;  June  22, 
1736;  June  29,  1738;  July  9,  1740. 

76  See  supra,  pp.  29 )$.;  also  Journal,  March  18,  1730;  June  9  and  10,  1731; 
Jan.  14  and  Dec.  29,  1732;  Nov.  6  and  7,  1733;  July  4,  1734;  April  11,  May  30, 
and  June  3  and  5,  1735;  March  24,  1736;  Nov.  22,  1740. 

77  Journal,  Dec.  4,  1731;  July  16,  1741. 

78  Journal,  Dec.  21  and  30,  1736. 

79  Journal,  May  30,  1739.  After  Paul  Dudley  was  disapproved  for  speaker,  the 
House  elected  him  to  the  Council,  and  Belcher  again  negatived  the  choice;  see 
ibid..  May  31,  1739. 

80  Journal,  Jan.  4,  1732;  Aug.  25,  1733;  July  4,  1734;  June  28,  1739. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


119 


William,81  the  disallowance  of  an  act  to  determine  the  number 
and  regulation  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  the  in¬ 
structions  prohibiting  Acts  in  repeal  of  laws  already  in 
existence.82 

Early  in  these  fruitless  contests,  Governor  Belcher,  adopt¬ 
ing  an  adroit  spoils  policy,  had  begun  to  fill  the  public  offices 
with  political  friends.  This  method  of  procedure,  aside  from 
the  rather  ominous  precedents  under  the  Andros  administra¬ 
tion,  was  an  innovation,  which  was  rendered  even  more  ob¬ 
noxious  by  Belcher’s  claim  that  all  appointees  to  office  under 
the  Governor  were  subject  to  removal  by  each  new  executive. 
Even  the  younger  Cooke,  through  acceptance  of  a  judgeship, 
fell  greatly  in  the  public  esteem.83  Ultimately  this  policy 
served  only  to  increase  the  Governor’s  difficulties. 

The  policies  of  Governor  Belcher  and  nearly  all  of  his 
failings  were  a  consequence  of  his  passion  for  prestige.84 
Prestige  w^as  his  ambition  —  for  the  attainment  of  which  no 
price  was  too  great.  To  this  end  were  sacrificed  friends, 
fortune,  peace  of  mind,  and  even  principle.  He  sought  and 
clung  to  the  governorship,  not  merely  for  its  own  sake,  for 
it  brought  neither  pay  nor  peace  and  only  strife,  but  chiefly 
for  the  prestige  it  implied.  Hence  his  bemoaning  the  threat¬ 
ened  loss  of  little  New  Hampshire,  and  his  struggle,  even  to 
the  extent  of  employing  questionable  tactics,  to  prevent  it.85 
He  courted  the  prerogative  for  the  same  reason  that  he  had 
previously  courted  the  place  of  colonial  agent,  when  that 
office  implied  a  protest  against  prerogative,  but  gave  him 

81  Journal,  Aug.  25  and  Nov.  1,  1733,  and  passim;  see  also  Board  of  Trade  to 
Belcher,  July  9,  1740,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  1502/f.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  917, 
pp.  325Jf.;  also  letter  from  the  King  to  Belcher,  Nov.  12,  1730,  ibid.,  p.  1257. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  871  (page  reference  is  omitted  from  Transcripts) . 

82  Journal,  Nov.  30,  1732;  Jan.  14,  1738. 

83  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  133;  Windsor,  op.  cit.,  V,  133. 

84  This  statement  is  based  upon  examination  of  Belcher’s  printed  correspondence, 
as  contained  in  the  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  G,  VI,  VII. 

86  Cf.  supra,  pp.  23 ff.  Belcher  Papers ,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  0,  VII,  402. 


120 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


some  prominence  over  his  fellows.  To  “swing  around  the 
circle”  in  pursuit  of  his  ambition  was  easy  to  him,  even 
when  the  shifting  required  unscrupulous  manipulation.  His 
other  faults,  —  obsequiousness,  hypercritical  adulation  of 
superiors,86  petty  officiousness,  want  of  tact  and  of  consider¬ 
ation,87  duplicity,88  inordinate  love  of  wealth,  fondness  for 
display,89  readiness  to  take  offence,  harshness  toward 
debtors,  ostentatious  piety,90  —  these  and  the  rest  that  are 
charged  against  him  were  simply  handmaids  to  his  ruling 
ambition  for  prestige. 

With  a  character  so  doubtfully  dependable,  Belcher’s 
occasional  strong  opposition  to  the  Assembly  may  seem  sur¬ 
prising.  But  his  strength  lay  in  his  ambition.  It  should  be 
noted  that  at  the  time  of  his  firmest  stand  in  the  conflict 
over  auditing  the  treasury  accounts,  his  influence  with  the 
ministry  was  very  uncertain;  both  Bladen  and  Newcastle 
were  withdrawing  their  patronage.91  It  therefore  behooved 
Belcher,  if  he  was  to  prop  up  his  threatened  prestige,  to  build 
himself  a  platform  by  showing  vigorous  effort  in  behalf  of 
the  prerogative.  His  vehemently  loyal  attitude  on  other 
occasions  also  is  similarly  explained.  Excerpts  from  his 
letters,  of  which  the  following  is  typical,  corroborate  this: 

I  had  almost  forgot  to  say  that  I  believe  my  message  to  the 
Representatives  of  this  Province  in  their  last  session,  where  I  so 
much  asserted  the  King’s  honour  &  stuck  so  close  to  his  instruc¬ 
tions  will  be  of  good  service  to  me  among  the  King’s  ministers.92 

It  may  be  noted  also  that  Belcher’s  ardor  in  enforcing  the 
salary  instructions  died  out  as  soon  as  the  Assembly’s  refusal 

86  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  VI,  31,  49,  52,  65,  125,  127,  211,  86, 
138,  and  passim. 

87  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  Coll.,  VII,  307,  and  passim. 

88  Ibid.,  VI,  322,  336,  338/. 

89  Ibid.,  VI,  371,  211,  307. 

90  Ibid.,  Series  6,  VI,  341,  357;  VII,  193,  336. 

91  George  Arthur  Wood,  op.  cit.,  p.  49. 

92  Belcher  Papers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  Coll.,  Series  6,  VII,  238. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


121 

became  absolute  —  the  refusal  might  for  him  entail  a  financial 
loss.  Therefore  he  was  soon  writing  for  a  relaxation  of  the 
instructions  even  at  the  expense  of  the  prerogative.  Where 
he  himself  was  not  to  be  the  loser,  he  seemed  perfectly 
willing  that  the  Assembly  should  gain  its  point.  Belcher 
was  a  loyal  advocate  of  whatever  interests  coincided  with 
his  own. 

That  Governor  Belcher’s  administration  resulted  in 
weakening  England’s  hold  upon  the  colonies  is  beyond  ques¬ 
tion.  In  the  matter  of  salary  still  another  victory  had  been 
practically  won.  Complete  triumph  in  this  conflict  was  to 
come  under  the  next  Governor.  Moreover,  in  increasing 
disregard  of  royal  instructions  the  aggressive  House  had  pro¬ 
ceeded  with  impunity.  To  strengthen  the  consequent 
weakening  hold,  to  restrain  the  ever-growing  tendencies 
toward  independence,  to  transform  into  filial  dependence  a 
waning  allegiance  was  the  gigantic  task  that  confronted  the 
new  Governor,  William  Shirlev. 

George  Washington  had  a  high  opinion  of  Shirley:  “I 
think  his  every  word  and  action  discover  him  a  gentleman 
and  politician.”93  On  the  other  hand,  John  Adams  thus  de¬ 
scribed  him:  “A  crafty,  busy,  ambitious,  intriguing,  enter¬ 
prising  man;  and  having  mounted  to  the  chair  in  this 
province,  he  saw  in  a  young,  growing  country  vast  prospects 
opening  before  his  eyes,  and  conceived  great  designs  of 
aggrandizing  himself,  his  family,  and  his  friends.”94 

By  birth  as  well  as  sympathy  an  Englishman,  by  profession 
a  lawyer,  and  in  early  life  blessed  with  neither  fortune  nor 
opportunity,  Shirley  passed  many  years  as  an  office-seeker 
and  finally  secured  the  position  of  Governor  of  Massachu¬ 
setts.  His  appointment  was  received  with  general  satisfac¬ 
tion,  and  the  early  years  of  his  administration  won  the 

93  Washington  to  Fairfax,  April  20,  1755,  Works,  II,  74.  Quoted  by  Barry, 
op.  cit.,  II,  183. 

94  John  Adams,  Novanglus,  in  Works,  IV,  18/f. 


122 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


confidence  of  both  provincial  and  Crown  interests.95  This 
striking  contrast  with  the  experiences  of  his  predecessor  was 
due  in  part  to  two  very  favorable  circumstances,  —  the 
cessation  of  struggle  over  the  salary  question,  and  the  satis¬ 
faction  and  good  will  that  followed  the  Louisburg  victory, 
which  latter  was  due  in  large  measure  to  Shirley’s  own  per¬ 
sistent  labors. 

Governor  Shirley  entered  upon  his  duties  with  full  appre¬ 
ciation  of  the  difficulties  involved : 

I  am  sensible,  My  Lord  Duke,  that  I  am  now  entring  upon 
the  Governmt  of  a  province,  where  Col.  Shute  quitted  the  Chair, 
&  Mr.  Burnet  broke  his  heart  thro  the  Temper  and  Opposition  of 
the  people;  &  Mr.  Belcher  in  the  midst  of  his  Countrymen  fail’d 
of  carrying  any  one  of  those  points  for  the  Crown,  which  might 
have  been  expected  from  him;  and  that  I  enter  upon  it  at  a  time, 
when  an  empty  Treasury,  an  Aversion  in  the  House  of  Repre¬ 
sentatives  to  supply  it  conformably  to  his  Majy’s  last  Instruction; 
a  weak  and  Ruinous  Condition  of  their  Fortifications,  a  bad  Spirit 
rais’d  throughout  the  Country  by  the  Land  Bank  Scheme,  by 
means  of  it’s  being  conniv’d  at  here  in  it’s  first  rise,  remaining  un¬ 
check’d  so  long,  that  the  imprudt  manner  of  endeavouring  to 
check  it  here  afterwards  by  those  who  were  at  the  same  time  en¬ 
deavouring  to  support  &  countenance  it  at  home  .  .  .  ,  only  in¬ 
flamed  it;  &  Mr.  Belcher’s  constant  acceptance  from  year  to 
year  of  a  Diminished  Salary,  after  he  had  obtain’d  leave  to  take 
it  without  insisting  upon  his  Majesty’s  Instruction  on  that  head, 
the  value  of  which  is  by  that  means  sunk  from  about  10001.  Sterl. 
which  had  been  allow’d  by  the  Genl  Court  to  Governr  Burnett 
and  himself  with  a  promise  to  the  former  of  ’em  to  continue  as 
ample  an  Allowance,  down  to  the  Value  of  6501.  Sterl.  which 
seems  to  have  been  done  by  him  with  some  particular  View  of  his 
own,  to  secure  his  station  by  the  smallness  of  his  Salary;  are  what 
make  up  the  present  Scene  of  Affairs  in  the  province,  whereupon 
the  House  of  Representatives  tell  me  in  their  Address,  that  they 

95  George  Arthur  Wood,  The  Public  Life  of  William  Shirley,  pp.  14,  34-100. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


123 


are  concern’d  my  Accession  to  the  Chair  should  be  attended  with 
such  Difficulties.”  96 

During  the  first  few  sessions,  except  for  a  disagreement  on 
the  salary  question,  there  was  general  tranquillity.  Shirley 
was  determined  not  to  follow  the  example  of  his  predecessor 
in  accepting,  for  the  sake  of  more  easily  securing  his  office, 
whatever  sums  the  Assembly  might  offer.  He  therefore 
anticipated  considerable  difficulty  in  obtaining  a  grant  in 
accordance  with  his  instructions.97  These  required  a  fixed 
sum  equivalent  to  £1,000  sterling  “  clear  of  all  deductions,” 
to  be  conferred  upon  himself  and  his  successors,  or  at  least 
upon  himself  during  continuance  in  office.  In  the  event  of 
refusal  he  was  empowered  to  accept  temporary  sums.97 
Prolonged  discussion,  however,  showed  no  evidence  of  the 
Assembly’s  willingness  to  comply.98  Although  the  amount 
was  raised  from  £900  to  £1,000,  it  was  in  paper  money  and 
not  sterling.  The  next  Assembly  granted  £1,300,  which  was 
equivalent  to  £1,000  sterling  in  Boston,  but  not  in  England. 
This  House  refused,  however,  to  obey  the  instructions  as  to 
the  period  of  the  grant.  Shirley  nevertheless  accepted  it, 
hoping  later  on  to  overcome  the  extremely  unpopular  atti¬ 
tude  toward  fixed  grants.99  The  dispute  after  this  time 
arose  over  the  Governor’s  attempts  to  persuade  the  House 
to  take  into  consideration  the  depreciation  in  the  value  of 
paper  money,  and  to  increase  its  grants  in  order  to  approxi¬ 
mate  the  prescribed  £1,000  sterling. 

In  the  very  next  year,  1743,  Shirley  brought  to  their 
attention  the  fact  of  depreciation,  and  he  received  £1,350. 100 

56  Charles  Henry  Lincoln,  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  40. 

97  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  40jf.,  54. 

98  Journal,  Jan.  21  and  22,  1742;  March  27,  30  (grant  of  £900),  and  31,  and 
April  3  (£l,000),  9,  14,  15,  16,  and  23,  1742.  Shirley  to  Newcastle,  April  30,  1742, 
ibid.,  p.  85. 

99  Journal,  May  28  and  June  2,  1742.  Shirley  to  Lords  of  Trade,  June  23,  1742, 
Correspondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  87$\ 

100  Journal,  June  2  and  4  (grant  £1,350),  1743. 


124 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


In  1747,  after  he  had  rejected  a  grant  of  £1,440,  the  House, 
careful  first  to  state  that  it  would  never  feel  bound  to  give 
a  fixed  sum,  raised  his  salary  to  £1,500. 101  Complaining  a 
year  later  that  the  value  had  sunk  far  below  that  of  £1,500 
of  the  previous  year,  the  House  added  another  hundred 
pounds,  with  a  reminder,  again,  that  it  was  “not  bound  by 
any  Instruction  from  His  Majesty  relating  thereto.”  102 
A  month  later  the  grant  was  put  back  to  £1,500,  which 
brought  a  further  complaint  regarding  depreciation,  the 
latter  resulting  in  a  raise  to  £1,900. 103  When  again  in  1747 
and  1748  after  much  debate,  the  sum  of  £1,900  was  voted, 
Shirley  again  objected,  refusing  to  accept  the  last  grant  on 
the  grounds  that  its  present  value  was  not  equal  even  to 
three  fourths  of  the  stipulated  £1,000  sterling.104  The 
House,  after  pleading  inability  owing  to  war  burdens  to 
raise  the  amount,  finally  voted  £2,000. 105  Even  this  was 
declared  by  Shirley  to  be  insufficient  to  meet  their  expressed 
intention  of  granting  support  to  the  Governor  “suitable  to 
the  dignity  of  his  Station  and  the  abilities  of  the  People.” 
This  he  proved  by  comparing  the  value  of  the  £3,000  granted 
to  Governor  Burnet  in  1728  with  the  present  depreciated 
value  of  £1,900,  placing  emphasis  on  the  higher  cost  of 
living  in  his  own  day.  By  computation  he  showed  that  it 
would  take  £3,100  in  money  of  1748  to  equal  £3,000  in 
1728.  On  the  ability  of  the  people  to  pay  a  higher  salary, 
he  also  adduced  figures.  Since  1728  the  polls  had  brought 
in  enlarged  revenue  to  the  amount  of  £14,750;  at  that  time 
only  128  towns  were  returning  representatives,  as  against 
153  in  1748;  t?he  public  debt  was  only  one  sixth  of  what  it 
had  been  in  1744;  and  in  consideration  of  Parliament’s  recent 
reimbursement  for  war  expense,  it  had  become,  in  1748, 

101  Journal,  June  12,  20,  and  21,  1745. 

102  Journal,  June  19  and  20,  1746. 

103  Journal,  July  18,  1746;  Jan.  14  and  15,  1747. 

104  Journal,  June  19  and  24,  1747;  June  10,  14,  and  22,  1748. 

105  Journal,  June  15  and  18,  1748;  Nov.  9  and  10,  1748. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


125 


even  less.  He  noted  also  that  in  consideration  of  increased 
cost  of  living,  the  pay  of  the  members  themselves  had  been 
raised.  This  brought  a  raise  to  £2, 400. 106 

To  the  grant  of  £2,000  that  was  made  in  the  following 
year  Shirley  waived  his  objections,  owing  to  the  expectation 
of  a  severe  drought.  During  his  absence  of  four  years  in 
England  from  Sept.  11, 1749,  to  Sept.  5, 1753,  no  salary  was 
granted.  In  December,  1753,  the  House  voted  £1,400,  not 
in  bills  of  credit,  but  in  ‘Tawful  money.”107 

The  Governor,  after  enumerating  his  past  services  to  the 
province,  complained  of  the  inadequacy  of  this  grant  also, 
even  though  in  value  it  exceeded  by  fifty  pounds  the  £1,000 
sterling.  By  three  votes  he  lost  a  further  increase,  the  House 
declaring  that  his  reward  was  already  made  in  his  commis¬ 
sion  for  Colonel  and  in  various  gratuities  from  themselves. 
They  hoped  he  would  not  further  press  the  justice  of  his 
claim  “at  the  expense  of  [their]  Reason  and  Understanding.” 
Shirley  disregarded  this,  however,  and  distinguishing  be¬ 
tween  “gratuity”  and  “recompense”  gave  a  more  detailed 
account  of  his  service,  showing  that  he  was  short  of  his  just 
due  by  “several  Hundred  pounds  sterling.”  Twice  the 
House  refused  to  consider  his  repeated  request.108  In  the 
following  years,  1754  and  1755,  the  grant  was  £1,300.  The 
only  remonstrance  from  the  Governor  had  reference  to  lack 
of  any  recompense  for  recent  services  in  the  Kennebec 
region,  and  to  the  deferred  payment  promised  in  1745,  of 
£300  for  his  services  at  Louisburg.  He  received  £250  for 
the  first  and  £200  for  the  Louisburg  affair.109 

When  in  1756  no  salary  was  granted  at  the  usual  time, 
that  is,  at  the  first  assembling  of  the  newly  elected  General 

106  Journal,  Nov.  15  and  16,  1748. 

107  Journal,  June  8,  14,  and  24,  1749.  Shirley  to  Newcastle,  Jan.  23  and  April 
10,  1750,  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  504>ff.  Journal,  Dec.  20,  1753. 

108  Journal,  Jan.  2,  9,  11,  16,  and  17,  1754. 

109  Journal,  June  6,  1754  (grant  £l,300);  Dec.  20,  1754;  June  5,  1755  (grant 
£1,300). 


126 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Court,  Governor  Shirley,  about  to  leave  the  province  in 
answer  to  the  King’s  summons,  called  the  matter  to  the 
attention  of  the  House.  He  presented  also  that  part  of  the 
royal  instructions  prescribing  that  in  the  absence  of  the 
Governor  there  should  be  paid  to  him  one  half  of  his  usual 
salary  and  emolument,  the  other  half  going  to  his  substitute. 
He  expressed  also  the  hope  that  with  this  instruction  in 
mind  they  would  consider  the  years  1750,  1751,  and  1752,  in 
which  he  had  been  absent,  and  for  which  the  House  had  as 
yet  made  no  provision.  This  occasioned  a  “present”  of 
£400,  granted  “in  consideration  of  his  service  hitherto,  and 
for  furnishing  his  Table  with  such  things  as  will  be  for  his 
better  accommodation,  on  his  intended  voyage  to  Great 
Britain.”  In  view  of  the  heavy  burden  of  war  expenses 
the  House  declared  the  province  too  poor  to  give  more. 
Anxiety  at  this  juncture  over  the  fall  of  Oswego  termi¬ 
nated  discussion.110 

Thus  was  ended,  and  for  a  considerable  period,  the  long- 
drawn-out  struggle  of  successive  Governors  regarding  salary. 
The  whole  controversy  may  be  summed  up  as  follows : 
Previous  to  Governor  Belcher’s  time,  the  royal  instructions 
had  required  a  fixed  and  permanent  grant,  narrowing  down 
the  latter  to  at  least  the  period  of  the  individual  Governor’s 
administration.  Governor  Belcher  received,  when  the 
ministry  capitulated,  simply  an  exception  to  the  instructions. 
Governor  Shirley’s  instructions  themselves  made  provision 
for  acceptance  of  temporary  grants.  The  chief  difficulty  in 
Shirley’s  administration  lay  in  persuading  the  House,  when 
making  the  annual  grant,  to  take  into  consideration  the  con¬ 
tinued  depreciation  of  paper  money,  and  to  increase  the 
grant  in  order  to  bring  it  up  to  the  value  of  £1,000  sterling. 
After  Shirley’s  recall  the  salary  dispute  died  down,  not  to 
recur  until  long  after  in  1771,  when  the  question  took  a  most 
unexpected  turn. 

110  Journal,  Aug.  25  and  30,  Sept.  7,  and  passim,  1756. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


127 


Governor  Shirley,  like  his  predecessor  though  to  a  con¬ 
siderably  less  extent,  had  trouble  in  securing  legislation  for 
supply  of  the  treasury.  The  difficulty  was  caused  by  re¬ 
strictions  in  the  royal  instructions  regarding  bills  of  credit. 
In  his  first  address  Shirley  cautiously  reminded  members  of 
the  evils  consequent  upon  over-issues,  referring  also  to 
Parliament’s  intention  to  consider  the  paper  money  situa¬ 
tion.  Noting  that  bills  rated  at  £1,000  in  1731  were  now 
worth  only  £650  sterling,  he  took  care  to  placate  possible 
antagonism  by  suggesting  as  the  probable  cause  of  the 
decrease  the  influx  of  bills  from  other  colonies.  Shirley’s 
problem  was  to  supply  the  treasury  in  accordance  with 
the  instructions.  The  House,  however,  would  insist  upon 
supplying  it  by  new  issues  of  paper  money;  but  by  the  royal 
instructions  no  issues  in  excess  of  £30,000  were  permitted, 
and  these  only  with  a  suspending  clause,  and  when  designed 
exclusively  for  the  support  of  government.111 

After  rejecting  one  bill,  Shirley  was  later  enabled  to  assent 
to  another  for  £36,000  when  intelligence  was  received  of  the 
withdrawal  of  the  requirement  of  a  suspending  clause. 
Although  the  Board  of  Trade  expressed  disapproval  of  this 
method  of  providing  supply  by  new  emissions,  Shirley 
justified  his  assent  by  the  necessities  of  the  province.112 

Thus  was  Governor  Shirley  able  to  evade  what  might 
otherwise  have  proved  a  serious  difficulty,  and  might  have 
given  a  completely  different  complexion  to  a  career  that 
was  destined,  because  of  his  consistent  avoidance  of  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  House,  to  be  comparatively  peaceful,  if  not 
altogether  successful.  Later  difficulties  implied  in  supplying 
the  treasury  by  new  issues  of  bills  of  credit  were  allayed  by 
requesting  leave  to  consent  to  issues  in  excess  of  the  stipulated 

111  Journal,  Aug.  17,  1741.  For  Instructions  to  Governor  Shirley  see  Corre¬ 
spondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  47/f. 

112  Shirley  to  Newcastle,  Oct.  17,  1741,  Jan.  23,  1742;  and  to  Board  of  Trade, 
April  30,  1742,  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  70,  79jf.,  83  f.;  cf.  also  Journal, 
Sept.  25,  Oct.  14,  15,  and  16,  and  Dec.  3  and  19,  1741;  Jan.  3  and  15,  1742. 


128 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


£30,000  on  the  grounds  of  military  pressure  and  prosecution 
of  the  war  against  France,  and  by  declaring  that  under  the 
circumstances  there  was  no  other  practical  method  of  supply. 
This  brought  an  additional  instruction  allowing  him  “in  case 
of  Emergencys  to  give  .  .  .  consent  to  such  Acts  as  may  be 
necessary  for  the  Supply  of  the  Treasury  .  .  .  with  Bills  of 
publick  Credit  during  the  Continuance  of  the  present 
War.” 113 

This  concession  was  a  solvent  for  all  subsequent  difficulties. 
Although  Shirley  subsequently  objected  to  supply -grants 
made  contrary  to  the  original  instructions  and  to  the  desires 
of  the  home  government,  especially  because  of  the  enormous 
accumulations  due  to  repeated  issues  and  the  consequent 
sinking  in  values,  in  which  respect  the  ministers,  the  orphans, 
and  the  widows  were  the  chief  sufferers,114  he  nevertheless 
always  had  the  above  additional  instruction,  together  with 
resort  to  the  pressure  of  military  necessity,  to  fall  back 
upon ;  and  on  these  grounds  gave  his  approval  to  issue  after 
issue,  thus  evading  still  another  subject  of  contention.115 
Thereafter  on  the  paper  money  question  Shirley’s  chief 
difficulties  came  in  his  attempts  to  secure  redemption  of  out¬ 
standing  issues  116  and  standardization  of  value.117  In  the 
latter  particular  the  situation  was  greatly  alleviated  by 
Parliament’s  grant  of  over  £180,000  sterling  in  reimburse¬ 
ment  of  Massachusetts  for  the  recent  war  expenses.118 

113  Shirley  to  Board  of  Trade,  Aug.  10,  1744,  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley, 
I,  140/F.  Additional  instructions  to  Governor  Shirley,  ibid.,  I,  144^.;  see  also 
Journal,  Sept.  12,  1743. 

114  Journal,  Feb.  9  and  March  1,  1744;  June  25,  July  2,  and  Aug.  1,  1745;  Jan.  3 
and  June  5  and  19,  1746;  Nov.  4,  1747;  Feb.  3,  May  26,  and  June  23,  1748. 

115  Journal,  June  28,  1746;  June  23,  1748,  and  passim. 

116  Journal,  Nov.  19,  1742;  May  27  and  30,  1743;  June  25,  July  2,  Aug.  1,  and 
Dec.  24,  1745;  Jan.  3,  1746;  June  14  and  Dec.  22,  1748;  Dec.  23,  1754. 

117  Journal,  Jan.  9,  1746;  June  27,  Sept.  5,  and  Oct.  27,  1747;  Nov.  21,  1748; 
Jan.  10,  11,  12,  13,  14,  17,  24,  and  25,  April  8  and  21,  and  June  24  and  29,  1749. 

118  Journal ,  Jan.  6,  1749.  The  reimbursement  amounted  to  £183,649,  2s,  7p, 
ha’penny,  sterling. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


129 


As  a  result  of  the  capture  of  Louisburg  and  of  the  subse¬ 
quent  era  of  peace,  the  need  for  military  appropriations 
temporarily  ceased.  Thus  another  frequent  cause  of  con¬ 
flict  with  the  House  was  removed  in  Governor  Shirley’s 
time.  The  House  in  fact  co-operated  with  Shirley  on  military 
matters  to  a  most  extraordinary  degree,  never  failing  his  re¬ 
peated  applications  for  men  and  supplies  for  the  expeditions 
against  Louisburg,  Canada,  and  the  West  Indies.119  So  long 
as  the  result  of  campaigns  appeared  favorable  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  seemed  always  willing  to  aid.  Toward  the  end  of 
Shirley’s  term,  however,  and  especially  after  reverses  such 
as  the  defeat  of  Braddock  in  Pennsylvania,  and  also  when 
the  members  could  not  foresee  a  possible  advantage  accruing 
directly  to  Massachusetts,  or  when  they  believed  greater  ad¬ 
vantages  destined  to  accrue  to  other  colonies,  e.g.,  to  New 
York  by  the  defense  of  Crown  Point,  there  was  usually 
evinced  some  unwillingness  to  co-operate  in  military  meas¬ 
ures.120 

Other  affairs  also,  which  in  Belcher’s  administration  had 
been  the  source  of  so  great  disturbance,  were  successfully 
managed  by  Shirley  —  among  others,  the  regulation  of  paper 
money,  with  the  sinking  by  1750  of  the  whole  paper  currency 
of  the  province,121  the  Land  Bank  excitement,  and  even  the 
formerly  impossible  task  of  obtaining  grants  for  Fort  Pema- 
quid.122  The  impressment  riots  that  occurred  in  Boston, 

119  Journal,  Dec.  31,  1741;  June  9  and  25,  Sept.  2,  and  Nov.  19,  1742;  Dec.  21, 

23,  and  28,  1743  (war  declared  March  15,  1744);  June  24,  Sept.  9,  and  Oct.  20, 

24,  and  27,  1744.  Shirley  to  Newcastle,  July  7,  1744,  Jan.  4,  1745,  Correspondence 
of  William  Shirley,  I,  132#.,  157#.;  see  also  passim  in  Journal. 

120  Journal,  Aug.  18,  19,  20,  24,  and  30,  Sept.  7,  and  Oct.  23,  1756;  see  also 
Representation  of  the  Case  of  His  Majesty’s  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  Corre¬ 
spondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  28Sjf. 

121  Shirley  to  Bedford,  Jan.  31,  1748,  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  462. 

122  Shirley  to  Newcastle,  Oct.  17,  1741,  Jan.  23,  1742,  Nov.  7,  1743,  Corre¬ 
spondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  76,  79#.,  107 jf.  Journal,  Jan.  15,  June  8,  10,  and 

25,  Sept.  9  and  Oct.  20,  1743;  Nov.  17,  1748.  George  Arthur  Wood,  op.  cit., 
pp.  104-108,  122,  160#. 


130 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


though  serious  in  themselves,  were  never  countenanced  by 
the  Assembly  and  are  therefore  somewhat  beyond  the  scope 
of  this  study.  These  violent  demonstrations,  however,  in 
opposition  to  the  King’s  orders  and  troops  and  in  defiance  of 
the  King’s  Governor  and  the  Government  of  Massachusetts, 
are  an  unmistakable  indication  of  the  long  strides,  uncon¬ 
scious  perhaps,  made  in  the  direction  of  political  independ¬ 
ence.  Some  description  of  the  situation  is  given  below  in 
a  paragraph  from  Governor  Shirley’s  correspondence  con¬ 
cerning  the  affair: 

After  suffering  the  Insults  of  an  Outrageous  Mob  at  Boston  on 
Tuesday  forenoon  by  having  my  House  beset,  and  one  of  the  under 
Sheriffs,  who  was  plac’d  at  my  Door,  dragg’d  away  from  thence, 
beat,  plundered,  and  put  in  the  Stocks;  and  great  outrages  com¬ 
mitted  at  night  in  a  Rebellious  manner  upon  myself  and  his 
Majesty’s  Council,  by  being  surrounded  in  the  Council  Chamber 
by  an  Arm’d  Mob,  and  assaulted  there  with  Brickbats;  and  by 
their  forcibly  entering  the  lower  floor  of  the  Townhouse,  and  after¬ 
wards  by  the  same  Mob’s  Assembling  at  night  before  my  House 
in  a  Tumultuous  Manner,  and  threatning  to  burn  a  Barge,  which 
they  thought  belong’d  to  His  Majesty,  in  my  Court  yard;  pos¬ 
sessing  themselves  of  the  Gates  of  the  Town,  and  threatning  to 
seize  all  the  Officers  of  his  Majesty’s  Navy  then  in  Town  and 
detain  ’em  as  Hostages,  and  Subject  ’em  to  the  Violence  of  their 
Lawless,  Arbitrary  Will  in  Defiance,  and  to  the  overthrow  of  his 
Majesty’s  Government:  And  finding  myself  without  a  proper 
force  for  suppressing  this  Insurrection,  and  maintaining  the  King’s 
Authority  in  the  Town;  the  soldiers  of  the  Militia  there  having 
refus’d  and  neglected  to  obey  my  Orders  given  ’em  by  their  Officers 
to  appear  in  Arms  for  quelling  the  Tumult,  and  to  keep  a  Military 
watch  at  night,  and  there  being  reason  to  apprehend,  the  Insurrec¬ 
tion  was  secretly  Countenanc’d  and  encourag’d  by  some  ill  minded 
Inhabitants  and  Persons  of  Influence  in  the  Town;  and  that  the 
same  rebellious  rout  would  be  repeated  the  night  following;  I  did 
not  think  it  consistent  with  the  Honour  of  his  Majesty’s  Govern¬ 
ment  to  remain  longer  in  the  midst  of  it,  destitute  of  all  proper 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


1S1 


means  for  suppressing  it,  preserving  the  Peace,  and  protecting 
his  Majesty’s  Subjects  committed  to  my  Care,  But  I  have  re¬ 
tir’d  to  his  Majesty’s  Castle  William,  ’till  I  can  assemble  a  sufficient 
force  of  the  Province  Militia  from  the  Neighbouring  regiments  in 
the  Country,  to  quell  the  Rebellious  Tumult.123 

The  Assembly’s  disapproval  of  these  anti-impressment 
demonstrations  did  not  imply  indorsement  of  the  system  of 
impressment  itself.  Open  disapproval,  even  in  the  face  of 
Shirley’s  recommendation  of  the  practice  in  order  to  facilitate 
transportation  of  troops  to  Canada,  was  consistently  mani¬ 
fested,  with  final  recourse  to  a  petition  to  the  King  himself, 
and  with  preparations  in  case  of  necessity  to  approach 
Parliament  also.124 

Although  the  principle  of  Shirley’s  policy  was  apparently 
to  avoid  conflict  whenever  possible,  even  at  the  expense  of 
yielding  some  little  of  the  prerogative  and  of  granting  oc¬ 
casional  unprecedented  demands,  there  was  one  question 
upon  which  for  a  time  he  withstood  the  Assembly.  To  him 
it  fell  to  face  the  first  real  test  of  the  theory  of  representation. 
This  theory,  held  and  practiced  for  nearly  half  a  century, 
maintained  that  every  new  township  had  the  right  to  send 
members  to  the  General  Court.  There  was  much  to  make 
this  important:  the  size  and  concomitantly  the  power  of 
the  lower  House  had  been  increasing,  to  the  consequent 
detriment  of  the  influence  of  both  Governor  and  Council. 
In  1742  Governor  Shirley  refused  to  approve  a  bill  creating 
three  new  townships,  bluntly  declaring  that  his  purpose 
was  “to  put  an  end  to  this  way  of  increasing  the  number  of 
representatives.”  This  proceeding  was  deemed  an  encroach¬ 
ment  on.  ancient  traditional  rights,  an  attempt  against  one 

123  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  406/f. 

124  Journal,  July  15,  16,  and  17  and  Aug.  5,  6,  9,  12,  13,  and  14,  1746;  April  23, 
June  2,  Nov.  7,  19,  and  20,  and  Dec.  1,  2  (petition  to  King),  10  (agent  authorized  in 
case  of  necessity  to  appeal  to  Parliament),  1747.  Shirley  to  Board  of  Trade, 
Dec.  1,  1747,  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  419. 


132 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


of  the  most  essential  safeguards  of  liberty,  with  implications 
for  the  future  of  a  dictatorship  by  Crown  appointees  and  of 
complete  dependence  upon  the  detested  instructions. 

Shirley  had  adopted  his  policy  through  conviction  that 
the  Massachusetts  politicians,  under  pretext  for  providing 
for  local  self-government,  intended  gradually  to  overthrow 
the  King’s  authority  as  embodied  in  the  Governor.  In 
England  this  view  was  approved  and  instructions  issued 
forbidding  his  consent  in  the  future  to  the  erection  of  new 
towns.  When  the  people  of  Lincoln  in  1744  requested  town¬ 
ship  privileges  they  were  granted,  all  except  that  of  returning 
representatives.  This  position  of  the  Governor  and  Council 
was  again  accepted  by  the  House  in  1746,  when  Natick 
became  a  town,  but  without  representation.  In  1753,  how¬ 
ever,  Shirley  abandoned  this  policy  and  violated  his  instruc¬ 
tions  by  signing  a  bill  erecting  three  new  towns.  Herein 
was  another  victory  for  the  House.125 

In  1754  there  was  a  disagreement  between  Shirley  and 
the  House  on  a  question  of  greater  interest  than  importance. 
The  representatives,  desiring  to  avoid  the  burden  of  an 
additional  poll  and  land  tax,  passed  a  bill  laying  an  excise 
on  domestic  liquors.  Although  twice  non-concurring,  the 
Council,  on  the  request  of  the  House,  reconsidered  and  ap¬ 
proved;  but  Shirley  refused  to  sign  the  bill.  In  the  light  of 
our  own  recent  18th  amendment  complications,  the  content 
of  this  bill  is  interesting.  It  provided  that  all  persons  except 
the  Governor,  Lieutenant-Governor,  the  President,  Pro¬ 
fessors,  Fellows  and  students  of  Harvard  College,  and  all 
settled  ministers,  should  be  required  to  give  an  account  to 
collectors,  on  oath  if  desired,  concerning  the  amount  of  “all 
the  Wine,  Rum,  Brandy  or  other  distilled  Spirits  expended 
by  them.”  Shirley  declared  the  enactment  “inconsistent 
with  the  Natural  Rights  of  every  private  Family  in  the 

125  Harry  A.  Cushing,  History  of  the  Transition  from  Provincial  to  Common¬ 
wealth  Government  in  Massachusetts,  pp.  17-27,  36,  notes.  Wood,  op.  cit.,  pp.  138/F. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


133 


Community  .  .  .  altogether  unprecedented  in  the  English 
Government.”126  During  a  recess  that  soon  followed,  the 
proposed  bill  was  sent  throughout  the  colony;  but  after  re¬ 
consideration  in  the  next  session  the  votes  of  the  towns  con¬ 
cerning  it  were  refused  attention,  and  after  many  debates, 
with  two  non-concurrences  in  the  Council  and  two  new 
drafts  of  the  bill,  it  was  finally  enacted.127 

About  the  same  time  also,  the  matter  of  quartering  the 
troops  caused  trouble.  Early  in  the  war  Shirley  had  desired, 
notwithstanding  the  objection  of  the  farmers,  to  quarter  the 
levies  on  them  over  the  winter  of  1746,  or  else  to  raise  the 
allotted  subsistence  money.  In  preference  to  the  quartering 
the  subsistence  was  raised,  but  only  to  one  fourth  of  the 
amount  suggested  by  Shirley.  There  was  further  difficulty 
in  1754,  arising  from  the  Parliamentary  act  for  providing 
quarters.  Shirley  realized  the  force  of  this  objection,  and 
suggested  as  a  means  of  evading  it  that  the  troops  be 
quartered  in  Castle  William.  This  was  accordingly  done, 
but  the  smallness  of  the  place  left  1,100  men  still  unprovided 
for.  The  House,  however,  refused  to  make  additional  neces¬ 
sary  appropriations.128 

In  general  Governor  Shirley  managed  by  his  tactfulness, 
combined  with  eminent  military  services,  to  hold  the  people’s 
esteem  —  even  when  after  an  absence  of  four  years  he  re¬ 
turned  from  Paris  in  1753  with  a  Catholic  wife.129  In  1750, 
when  hostile  influences  were  at  work,  Shirley  was  able  to 
write  to  Newcastle; 

126  Journal ,  1754,  p.  46. 

127  Journal ,  1754,  pp.  48,  51,  60,  94,  96,  98/.,  100/.,  126/.,  130,  140,  142,  144, 
147,  160,  166/. 

128  Journal,  Aug.  7,  1746;  Jan.  1  and  Feb.  26,  1755. 

129  Shirley  left  the  colony  in  September,  1749,  on  a  fruitless  mission  regarding 
the  French  boundaries,  returning  in  September,  1753.  His  wife  could  hardly  have 
been  made  happy  by  her  husband’s  part  in  furthering  the  outrage  on  Acadia. 
See  Journal,  September,  1749,  and  Sept.  5,  1753.  During  Shirley’s  absence  the 
government  was  conducted  by  the  Lieutenant-Governor,  Spencer  Phips. 


134 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


When  I  reflect,  my  Lord,  that  for  several  years  before  I  was 
appointed  to  my  Government,  the  people  of  it  had  been  remarkable 
for  quarrelling  with  their  former  Governours,  and  disputing  his 
Majesty’s  Instructions,  and  that  I  found  ’em  upon  my  coming 
into  the  Chair  embroil’d  in  factions  among  themselves,  that 
throughout  my  whole  Administration  a  perfect  Harmony  has  ever 
subsisted  between  me  and  the  Assembly;  that  thro’  the  Influence 
I  had  gain’d  over  ’em,  I  have  been  able  to  promote  some  publick 
Services,  the  happy  Effects  of  which  I  hope  the  Nation  may  long 
feel;  that  there  are  late  Instances  of  my  still  preserving  this 
Influence;  that  there  never  happen’d  the  least  Quarrell,  Ill  Will, 
or  Misunderstanding  between  me  and  the  Assembly;  that  upon 
my  leaving  Boston  they  publickly  express’d  their  Satisfaction  in 
my  Administration,  and  that  I  left  ’em  in  perfect  tranquility  and 
well  affected  to  his  Majesty’s  Government;  whilst  some  of  the 
Neighbouring  Colonies  are  involv’d  in  Factions  and  the  utmost 
Confusion;  I  say,  my  Lord,  when  I  reflect  on  these  things  and 
that  they  are  not  altogether  unknown  to  Your  Grace,  I  can’t  but 
be  jealous  that  your  Grace’s  Inquiry  proceeded  from  some  Insinua¬ 
tions,  which  may  have  been  made  to  Your  Grace,  that  I  have 
gone  into  some  imprudent  Measures,  which  have  begot  a  Dis¬ 
affection  in  the  People  to  me;  —  if  so,  I  beg  leave  to  assure  Your 
Grace  that  such  Insinuations  are  false  and  groundless.130 

* 

Relations  in  the  closing  years  of  Shirley’s  administration  be¬ 
tween  himself  and  the  Assembly  and  between  the  Assembly 
and  the  home  government  appeared  to  be  remarkably 
harmonious.  His  career  of  fifteen  years  was  not,  therefore, 
as  in  the  case  of  so  many  royal  Governors,  provocative  of 
discontent.  When  he  was  recalled  from  office  in  1756,  the 
Assembly  upon  his  departure  sent  a  message  of  commenda¬ 
tion.131  There  are  evidences,  however,  to  indicate  that 
Governor  Shirley’s  relations  with  the  Assembly  were  not  as 
peaceful  as  the  records  seem  to  imply.  This  may  be  inferred 
from  certain  changes  in  the  administration  of  civil  govern- 

130  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley ,  I,  493jf. 

131  Journal,  Aug.  17,  1756,  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley,  II,  44 ff. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


135 


ment  recommended  by  himself  in  his  proposed  plan  for  the 
government  of  Nova  Scotia.  Shirley  would  have  provided 
for  an  Assembly  with  triennial  instead  of  annual  meetings, 
“it  being  a  general  Observation  that  the  Assembly  at  the 
latter  end  of  the  Year  endeavour  to  distinguish  themselves 
by  their  Opposition,  and  moving  some  popular  Points  in 
order  to  recommend  themselves  to  their  Constituents,  and 
secure  their  Elections  for  the  ensuing  Year,  which  (among 
other  Inconveniences)  is  wholly  owing  to  the  frequency  of 
their  Elections.”  132  His  plan  also  vested  in  the  Governor 
the  power  to  suspend  the  Lieutenant-Governor  and  a  limited 
number  of  the  Councillors;  and  in  order  to  avoid  over¬ 
balancing  the  power  of  the  Council  he  suggested  that  the 
number  of  representatives  should  be  limited,  also  that  the 
incorporation  of  towns  should  pertain  entirely  to  the  King. 

Experience  of  the  bad  Influence,  which  the  mobbish  factious 
Spirit  of  the  Town  of  Boston  occasion’d  by  all  points  being  carried 
by  the  Populace  at  their  Town  meetings,  have  ever  had  upon  the 
other  Towns  in  the  government  and  upon  their  own  Members 
which  are  generally  leading  men  in  the  Assembly,  is  the  reason  of 
this  Alteration  being  propos’d.133 

These  changes  were  probably  suggested  to  Shirley  by  diffi¬ 
culties  occurring  in  his  own  experience.  The  existence  of 
disturbed  relations  may  be  further  inferred  from  his  desire 
to  be  transferred  to  the  Governorship  of  New  York,  and 
later,  for  the  sake  of  pecuniary  advantage,  to  that  of  the 
Leeward  Islands.134 

The  merit  of  Governor  Shirley’s  success  in  keeping  pace 
with  the  Assembly  may  well  be  questioned.  He  had  done 

132  General  Heads  of  a  Plan  of  a  Civil  Government  propos’d  for  His  Majesty's 
Province  of  Nova  Scotia  in  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley,  I,  473. 

133  Ibid. 

134  Shirley  to  Newcastle,  Sept.  1,  1750,  Nov.  23,  1752,  Correspondence  of  William 
Shirley,  I,  508;  II,  1 jf. 


136 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


so  chiefly  by  avoiding  encounter.  The  representatives  had 
therefore  become  even  more  unaccustomed  to  restraint  and 
to  control  from  without;  and  while  the  Governor  was  en¬ 
joying  peace,  they  were  strengthening  their  independent 
principles  and  practices.  Shirley’s  “successful”  administra¬ 
tion  left  still  weaker  the  bonds  that  united  the  colony  to 
England.  It  has  been  said,  in  fact,  that  the  American 
Revolution  “brewed”  during  Governor  Shirley’s  term,  a 
statement  probably  based  on  that  other  charge  that  Shirley 
was  the  originator  of  the  idea  of  Parliamentary  taxation.135 
That  he  favored  Parliamentary  taxation  is  certain;  and  he 
did  so  chiefly  because  the  colonies,  by  reason  of  the  continual 
controversies  between  Assemblies  and  Governors,  were  not 
sufficiently  responsive  in  rallying  to  the  support  of  English 
arms  in  the  colonial  wars.136  The  general  colonial  sentiment 
on  this  and  on  connected  points  of  grievance  may  be  inferred 
from  a  letter  to  Governor  Shirley  written  by  Benjamin 
Franklin  in  comment  on  the  proposed  plan  of  government 
for  the  colonies  as  drawn  up  in  1754.  Franklin,  who  was 
perhaps  the  best  qualified  person  in  all  the  colonies  to  give 
expression  to  the  common  state  of  mind,  maintained  that 
in  matters  of  general  concern,  and  especially  wherein  addi¬ 
tional  burdens  were  to  be  imposed,  attention  should  be 
given  as  well  to  what  the  people  “will  be  apt  to  think  and 
say,  as  what  they  ought  to  think.”  And  according  to  him 
the  people  would  no  doubt  say  that  the  colonists  were  as 
loyal  to  the  Crown  and  to  the  Constitution  as  were  any 
subjects  in  the  King’s  dominion,  hence  that  there  was  no 
reason  to  doubt  their  willingness  to  provide  for  military  ex¬ 
pense  according  to  their  ability;  but  it  was  felt  that  they 
themselves,  who  would  suffer  the  consequences  of  military 
invasions,  were  better  judges  of  the  requisites  for  defense, 

135  John  Adams,  History  of  the  Dispute  with  America,  p.  4. 

136  Shirley  to  Thomas  Robinson,  Feb.  5,  1755,  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley, 
II,  123/. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


137 


and  of  their  own  ability  to  provide  for  the  same,  than  was 
the  distant  English  Parliament.  They  would  say  also  that 
Governors  often  came  to  the  colonies  merely  to  make  their 
fortunes  and  were  not  always  men  of  the  best  ability  or 
integrity,  having  no  estates  in  the  colonies  nor  any  natural 
connections  that  would  insure  their  interests  in  the  colonial 
welfare;  that  they  might  possibly  be  sometimes  desirous  of 
raising  and  maintaining  more  forces  than  necessary,  with  an 
expectation  that  the  profits  would  accrue  to  themselves  and 
to  their  friends;  and  that  the  Councillors  in  many  of  the 
colonies,  being  appointed  by  the  Crown  on  the  recommenda¬ 
tion  of  Governors,  were  often  of  small  estate,  dependent  on 
the  Governor  for  offices,  and  therefore  too  greatly  under  their 
influence;  that  consequently  there  was  considerable  founda¬ 
tion  for  being  jealous  of  a  power  vested  in  such  Governors 
and  Councillors  to  raise  moneys  as  they  should  judge  neces¬ 
sary,  by  drafts  on  England,  to  be  afterward  laid  on  the 
colonies  by  act  of  Parliament  and  paid  by  the  people;  that 
Governors  might  abuse  such  power  by  planning  useless  ex¬ 
peditions,  harassing  the  people,  and  taking  them  from  their 
labor  in  order  to  execute  such  projects  merely  for  the  purpose 
of  creating  offices  to  gratify  dependents  and  to  divide  profits ; 
moreover,  that  the  Parliament  of  England  was  subject  to  be 
misinformed  by  such  Governors  and  Councils;  that  it  was 
an  undoubted  right  of  Englishmen  not  to  be  taxed  except 
by  their  own  consent  given  through  their  representatives, 
and  that  the  colonies  had  no  representatives  in  Parliament; 
again,  that  these  policies  in  general  evidenced  a  suspicion  of 
the  colonists’  loyalty  to  the  Crown  and  even  of  their  common 
sense  and  understanding;  that  compelling  the  payment  of 
taxes  without  consent  would  be  “rather  like  raising  contribu¬ 
tions  in  an  enemy’s  country  than  taxing  of  Englishmen  for 
their  own  public  benefit;  that  it  would  be  treating  them  as 
a  conquered  people  and  not  as  true  British  subjects.”  There 
was  mentioned  also  the  influence  liable  to  be  wielded  by  the 


138 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Governors  on  regulations  to  be  made  under  such  a  system 
“for  the  benefit  of  Governors,  to  the  grievous  burthen  and 
discouragement  of  the  colonies ;”  the  hardships  perceived 
in  the  extent  of  power  to  be  vested  in  the  Governors  to 
“march  the  inhabitants  from  one  end  of  the  British  and 
French  colonies  to  the  other,”  a  territory  covering  at  least 
1,500  square  miles,  and  this  without  the  consent  of  their 
representatives;  and  that  if  the  colonies  on  the  whole  were 
to  be  ruled  by  Governors  and  Councils  appointed  by  the 
Crown,  the  separate  colonies  might  as  well  dismiss  their 
Assemblies.  The  letter  went  on  to  justify  the  Albany  plan 
of  Union,  setting  forth  the  conventional  objections  to 
Parliamentary  taxation  without  representation,  and  referring 
to  consequent  political  and  economic  disadvantage  to  the 
colonies.137 

During  the  four  years  of  Shirley’s  absence  in  England,  the 
conduct  of  affairs  fell  to  the  Lieutenant-Governor,  Spencer 
Phips.138  His  administration  appears  to  have  been  in  general 
uneventful  judging  from  his  reply  to  a  communication  from 
the  Board  of  Trade  in  which  he  explained  that  his  reason 
for  not  forwarding  reports  concerning  the  province  was  that 
“nothing  material  had  occurred.”139  There  were,  however, 
troubles  of  various  kinds,  of  importance  chiefly  in  their 
indication  of  the  existence  of  strong  tendencies  toward 
greater  independence. 

The  chief  difficulty  regarded  supply  of  the  treasury, 

137  Benjamin  Franklin  to  William  Shirley,  Dec.  4,  1754,  Correspondence  of 
William  Shirley,  II,  lOSff. 

138  Phips  met  the  General  Court  for  the  first  time  on  Nov.  23,  1749.  Shirley 
next  presided  on  Sept.  5,  1753.  Thereafter  Phips  administered  the  province  during 
later  absences  also,  from  June  24,  1755,  to  Feb.  3,  1756;  from  May  27  to  Aug.  13, 
1756;  and  from  Oct.  15,  1756,  to  April  4,  1757,  when  he  died,  after  which  the 
Council  ruled  until  Aug.  3,  1757,  when  the  new  Governor,  Thomas  Pownal,  took 
over  the  administration.  See  Journal,  entries  for  dates  mentioned  in  this  foot¬ 
note;  and  C.  M.  Andrews,  op.  cit.,  p.  469. 

139  Phips  to  Board  of  Trade,  Oct.  9,  1751,  Ms.  letter  in  Archives  Division,  State 
House,  Boston,  Mass.,  volume  marked  Letters,  1750-1755,  Vol.  54,  p.  62. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


139 


arising  in  the  attempt  to  secure  both  prompt  and  adequate 
provision.  The  difficulty  was  partly  due  to  the  gradual  dis¬ 
continuance  of  paper  money  m  the  province.  The  Assembly 
no  longer  possessed  this  resource;  the  question,  therefore, 
really  resolved  itself  into  one  of  method  of  supply.  Borrowing, 
emitting  bills  of  credit,  sale  of  public  land,  and  proceeds  of  a 
lottery  were  suggested.140  The  Assembly,  after  much  bicker¬ 
ing  with  both  Governor  and  Council,  usually  ended  either 
by  borrowing  or  by  passing  bills  for  raising  lawful  money.141 
Attempts  to  issue  bills  of  credit  failed  in  the  House  itself; 
nor  would  the  Lieutenant-Governor  hear  of  postponing 
taxes  for  the  current  year,  thus  doubly  burdening  the  suc¬ 
ceeding  one.  Phips  constantly  urged  attention  to  the  treas¬ 
ury  supply,  refusing  in  1751  to  permit  a  recess  because  of  the 
still  empty  treasury.142  In  the  same  year  he  was  reminded 
by  the  Board  of  Trade  that  they  had  received  since  1743  no 
report  of  the  treasurer’s  account.143  Apparently,  Governor 
Shirley  had  been  pursuing  his  policy  of  evading  difficulties. 
Finally,  the  House  aggravated  the  situation  by  proposing 
that  the  treasurer  be  required  to  give  bond,  —  a  measure 
promptly  negatived  by  Phips.  As  a  result,  public  funds  were 
left  in  the  custody  of  the  farmers  of  the  excise,  and  were  not 
deposited  in  the  treasury,  on  the  claim  that  there  was  no 
dependable  treasurer,  and  with  the  result  that  the  creditors 
of  the  Government  were  left  unpaid.  Phips  indignantly  de¬ 
clared  : 

If  you  intend  by  this  ...  to  show  your  Resentment  at  my  not 
immediately  agreeing  to  the  Bill  you  had  prepared  to  oblige  the 

140  Borrowing:  Journal,  June  20  and  23,  and  Oct.  6  and  9,  1750;  Jan.  16,  1751; 
May  28,  1752.  Bills  of  Credit:  Journal,  Jan.  11,  1750;  Nov.  22,  1752.  Sale  of 
Public  Lands:  Journal,  Jan.  5,  1753.  Lottery:  Journal,  Jan.  29,  1751;  March 
31,  1753. 

141  Journal,  Jan.  3  and  20,  1750;  Peb.  5,  1751;  Jan.  17  and  June  5,  1752;  June 
12,  1753. 

142  Journal,  Jan.  3,  4,  11,  and  14,  Sept.  26,  and  Oct.  5,  1750. 

143  Phips  to  Board  of  Trade,  Oct.  9,  1751,  Ms.  letter  in  Archives  Division,  State 
House,  Boston,  Mass.,  in  volume  marked  Letters,  1750-1755,  Vol.  54,  pp.  62/f. 


140 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Treasurer  to  give  Security;  I  must  ask  you,  Gentlemen,  Whether 
you  imagine,  the  power  of  a  Negative  ...  is  never  to  be  made  use 
of?  Is  he  [the  Governor]  never,  in  any  case  to  exercise  his  own 
Judgment?  And  when  a  Bill  is  laid  before  me,  which  introduces 
a  new  practise,  etc.,  .  .  .  Have  I  no  Liberty  to  dissent  from  it? 
Must  the  Consequence  of  every  such  Difference  in  Judgment  be 
an  immediate  proposal  to  rise,  leaving  the  most  necessary  affairs, 
the  Supply  of  the  Treasury,  and  the  Means  of  Supporting  His 
Majesty’s  Government,  not  entered  upon?  144 

Endeavors  to  secure  an  adequate  salary  also  disturbed  the 
administration  of  Spencer  Phips.  When  a  grant  of  £200 
was  made  in  April,  1750,  Phips  reminded  the  representatives 
that  he  had  been  in  office  for  six  months,  and  asked  for 
support  sufficient  to  maintain  his  family  and  to  uphold  the 
dignity  of  his  station.145  During  the  remainder  of  his  term, 
except  on  two  occasions,146  and  despite  all  his  appeals  for  an 
increase,  the  semi-annual  grant  was  only  £300. 147 

There  were  difficulties  also  in  connection  with  attempts  to 
erect  new  townships:  the  Lieutenant-Governor’s  refusal  to 
declare  war  against  the  Penobscot  Indians,  his  veto  of  a 
Councillor,  and  concerning  the  legislation  for  new  compila¬ 
tion  of  laws  as  directed  by  the  royal  instructions.148 

Pending  the  arrival  in  August,  1757,  of  Shirley’s  successor, 
Governor  Thomas  Pownal,  affairs  were  conducted  as  de¬ 
scribed  by  the  Lieutenant-Governor  Spencer  Phips,  and, 

144  Journal,  June  19,  1753. 

145  Ibid.,  April  5  and  6,  1750. 

146  Ibid.,  Feb.  8,  1751  (£380)  and  June  8,  1753  (£340). 

147  Ibid.,  June  9,  1750;  June  20,  1751;  Jan.  24  and  May  30,  1752;  June  8, 
1753;  Jan.  16  and  June  4,  1756;  Feb.  18,  1757.  On  these  dates  the  grant  was 
£300.  For  details  concerning  Phips’  urgings  for  a  raise,  see  entries  for  April 
6,  1750;  Feb.  7,  1751;  Jan.  25  and  30,  April  2,  June  2  and  Dec.  29,  1752;  Feb. 
18,  1757. 

148  Journal,  Dec.  22,  1759;  Jan.  4,  1750;  May  30,  1751;  Dec.  6,  1752;  Jan. 
3  and  18,  1753  and  Oct.  3,  1755.  Ms.  copy  of  instruction  may  be  found  in  Archives 
Division,  State  House,  Boston,  Mass.,  in  volume  entitled  Legislature,  49,  p.  373. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


141 


after  his  death,  by  the  Council.149  The  new  Governor  faced 
no  inconsiderable  difficulties,  not  only  from  the  fact  that 
by  Shirley’s  non-aggressive  policies  the  House  had  become 
more  entrenched  in  its  position  regarding  controverted  rights 
and  privileges,  but  also  because  of  the  antagonism  of  many 
of  Shirley’s  friends  who  were  of  the  opinion  that  Pownal  had 
played  no  small  part  in  effecting  the  removal  of  his  prede¬ 
cessor.150  Moreover,  the  fact  that  Governor  Shirley  had 
been  so  long  and  so  frequently  absent  from  his  Government, 
and  that  for  years  no  official  accounts  of  the  state  of  the 
province  had  reached  the  Board  of  Trade,  gave  opportunity 
for  the  Assembly  to  strengthen  its  claims  by  their  uninter¬ 
rupted  exercise.  Pownal  was  therefore  probably  justified 
in  writing  that  since  the  death  of  the  Lieutenant-Governor, 
and  during  the  period  in  which  the  Council  held  sway,  there 
had  really  been  “no  Government  at  all  for  sometime,  but 
everything  in  Confusion  and  all  Business  in  arrears.”151  He 
appeared  also  to  foresee  the  difficulties  and  dangers  implied 
in  any  attempt  at  unreserved  enforcement  of  the  royal  pre¬ 
rogative.  Writing  at  a  later  period,  he  declared  that  “the 
bringing  any  of  the  Crown’s  rights  into  dispute  with  the 
People  is  the  sure  way  to  lose  them.”152  High  hopes,  how¬ 
ever,  were  entertained  as  to  his  success:  “Massachusetts 
will  go  on  well,”  wrote  Loudoun,  “as  Mr.  Pownal  is  Gov¬ 
ernor.”153  His  years  of  residence  in  America  had  afforded 
unusual  opportunity  of  learning  conditions  in  most  of  the 
colonies,  and,  in  addition  to  making  him  a  source  of  informa¬ 
tion  for  Pitt,154  increased  his  fitness  to  fill  the  office  of  chief 

149  C.  M,  Andrews,  op.  cit.,  p.  469. 

150  The  Life  of  Thomas  Pownal ,  by  Charles  A.  Pownal,  pp.  72/f. 

151  Pownal  to  his  brother.  Secretary  of  Board  of  Trade,  Aug.  16,  1751,  Life  of 
Thomas  Pownal,  sup.  cit.,  p.  80. 

162  Pownal  to  his  brother,  Sept.  3,  1757,  written  during  a  visit  to  New  Jersey 
in  his  capacity  of  Lieutenant-Governor  of  that  Colony,  ibid.,  p.  84. 

153  Loudoun  in  a  dispatch  quoted  ibid.,  p.  84. 

164  Ibid.,  pp.  67 ff. 


142 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


executive  in  what  was  perhaps  the  most  powerful  province 
in  America. 

The  extremities  of  the  military  situation  in  Pownal’s 
time,  especially  after  the  loss  of  Oswego  and  Fort  William 
Henry,  gave  prominence  to  only  questions  concerned  with 
war  measures.  The  salary  grants,  which  annually  amounted 
to  £1,300,  caused  no  conflicts.155 

Early  in  Governor  Pownal’s  administration  there  was 
trouble  over  quartering  some  of  General  Loudoun’s  troops. 
The  latter  had  proposed  the  measure,  and  Pownal  urged 
respect  for  the  King’s  known  wishes  in  the  matter  by  pro¬ 
viding  for  the  troops  and  thus  avoiding  the  difficulties  attend¬ 
ing  enforced  quartering.  The  House  acknowledged  the  duty 
of  co-operating  in  such  matters,  making  provision  for  1,000 
men  with  their  officers,  but  was  “far  from  apprehending 
that  the  Expense  of  Quartering  the  King’s  troops  .  .  .  may 
be  of  right  Insisted  upon,  or  demanded  from  the  inhabitants 
of  this  Province.”156  Already  the  war  taxes  were  so  heavy 
that  people  were  actually  leaving  the  overburdened  colony; 
it  was  therefore  decided  to  request  aid  from  the  King. 
Shortly  afterward,  during  the  winter  session  of  1757,  Boston 
refused  to  quarter  certain  recruiting  parties;  therefore 
Governor  Pownal  referred  the  matter  to  the  Assembly.157 
After  some  debate  provision  was  made,  but  for  the  recruiting 
parties  only.  The  Commander-in-Chief  was  by  no  means 
satisfied.  Parliament  had  already  legislated  on  the  matter 
of  quartering,  and  the  question  now  turned  on  whether  a 
further  provincial  quartering  law  was  necessary  or  even  per¬ 
missible.  On  considering  Loudoun’s  objection,  both  Houses 
declared  that  the  Parliamentary  Act  could  not  be  considered 
as  referring  to  the  colonies  in  this  respect,  although  they 
were  at  the  same  time  willing  to  admit  that  “wheresoever 

155  Journal ,  Aug.  24,  1757;  June  7,  1758;  June  7,  1759. 

156  Ibid.,  Aug.  25,  1757. 

157  Journal,  Aug.  27  and  31,  and  Nov.  26,  1757,  especially  pages  118,  132^/f.,  148Jf. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


143 


His  Majesty’s  troops  shall  be  sent  for  the  Protection  and 
Defense  of  his  dominions,  Quarters  and  Billeting  must  be 
provided  as  often  as  they  are  necessary.”158  As  to  Loudoun’s 
contention  that  further  provincial  action  was  rendered  un¬ 
necessary  by  the  Parliamentary  regulations,  the  General 
Court  argued  that  “when  in  ordinary  cases  His  Majesty’s 
forces  are  to  be  quartered  ...  an  act  of  the  legislature  is 
requisite  to  impower  the  civil  magistrate  to  do  it.”  They 
declared  also  that  they  had  no  objection  to  providing  for  the 
troops  sent  over  for  their  protection  and  defense,  but  begged 
“leave  further  to  observe  .  .  .  That  the  inhabitants  of  this 
province  are  entitled  to  the  natural  rights  of  English-born 
subjects;  .  .  .  This  will  animate  and  encourage  them  to  re¬ 
sist  to  the  last  breath  a  cruel,  invading  enemy.  The  loss  or 
hazard  of  these  enjoyments,  from  any  other  cause  naturally 
tends  to  deject  and  dispirit.”159  These  rights  they  were  de¬ 
termined  to  uphold,  though  the  maintenance  were  to  inter¬ 
rupt  their  friendly  relations  with  the  Governor.160  Loudoun, 
who  on  the  same  question  had  caused  considerable  trouble 
in  New  York,  issued  from  that  place  what  was  virtually  an 
ultimatum  demanding  that  the  provisions  of  the  Mutiny 
Act,  which  bound  householders  in  England  to  quarter  troops, 
should  be  observed  in  Massachusetts.  The  alternative  was 
provision,  under  duress,  for  five  additional  regiments. 
Quarters  were  granted,  but  the  General  Court  passed  a  special 
law  for  the  purpose,  —  a  proceeding  which  assumed  that  the 
laws  of  England  had  no  force  unless  confirmed  by  colonial 
representative  bodies.161 

In  February  of  the  following  year,  1758,  after  a  meeting 
of  four  colonies  at  Hartford,  during  which  the  Commander- 

158  Journal,  Dec.  16,  1757,  p.  208.  For  data  preceding,  see  ibid.,  Nov.  29  and 
30,  and  Dec.  14,  1757. 

169  Ibid.,  Dec.  16,  1757,  p.  209. 

160  Journal,  Dec.  16,  1757,  p.  209. 

161  Life  of  Thomas  Pownal,  sup.  cit.,  pp.  85/.;  Hutchinson-,  Massachusetts, 
HI,  63/. 


144 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


in-Chief  proposed  his  plans  for  the  coming  year,  the  Assembly 
adopted  a  similar  attitude.  Pownal  himself  conceded  that 
the  quartering  Acts  implied  “Suspension  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights/'  but  requested  the  Assembly  to  do  what  it  could  to 
provide  for  troops  that  were  to  pass  through  the  province.162 
Later  in  the  same  year  Boston  caused  a  renewal  of  difficulties 
by  refusing  to  provide  quarters,  but  once  more,  after  con¬ 
siderable  debate,  Pownal  secured  provision  from  the  As¬ 
sembly.163  Early  in  1759,  also,  there  was  further  objection 
on  the  part  of  the  House  to  quartering  troops  passing 
through  the  colony,  but  provision  was  finally  made.164 

Troubles  of  a  different  nature  arose  over  Pownal’s  protest 
against  the  Assembly's  encroachment  upon  his  powers  as 
Commander-in-Chief.  As  in  similar  cases  in  Massachusetts 
as  well  as  in  other  colonies,  this  was  done  by  the  practice  of 
prescribing  the  application  of  funds  granted  for  military 
purposes,  and  by  determining  in  such  bills  the  purpose  of 
the  appropriation,  and  even  the  number  of  men  to  be  em¬ 
ployed,  together  with  the  place  and  the  nature  of  their 
service.165  One  example  is  seen  in  the  attempt  of  the  As¬ 
sembly  to  reduce  expenses  by  reducing  the  number  of  men 
employed,  and  by  determining  in  a  vote  providing  scouts 
for  the  frontier,  their  station  and  destination.166  Governor 
Shirley’s  conciliatory  policy  had  permitted  bills  in  this  form; 
now,  under  pressure  of  military  necessity,  Governor  Pownal 
also  was  constrained  to  yield  to  what  he  deemed  a  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  charter  and  an  infringement  of  the  prerogative: 

I  protest  against  the  breach  you  have  made  upon  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  your  Charter,  and  the  Infringement  upon  the  Rights  of 
the  Crown  ...  I  have  told  you  .  .  .  that  I  should  employ  the 

162  Journal,  March  24,  1758;  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  67/. 

163  Journal,  Oct.  6,  10,  11,  and  12,  1758,  pp.  80,  89,  90,  92,  94. 

164  Ibid.,  Jan.  11,  13,  and  16,  1759,  especially  pp.  168,  180,  188,  189. 

165  Journal,  Oct.  4,  1758,  pp.  73/.;  Jan.  23  and  24,  1759,  pp.  297,  301,  303. 

166  See  footnote  158. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


145 


Forces  in  the  same  Manner  that  you  determined  by  your  Vote.  .  .  . 
The  only  question  is  who  shall  direct  and  limit  this  service,  the 
House  of  Representatives  or  the  King’s  Governor:  But  this  your 
Charter  leaves  no  room  to  make  a  question  of.167 

Later  in  the  session  opening  October  4,  1758,  the  Assembly 
somewhat  abated  its  insistence  upon  the  privileges  men¬ 
tioned.168  With  the  practice  in  general,  the  home  Govern¬ 
ment  was  exceedingly  displeased,  perceiving  tendencies  only 
too  pronounced  toward  expansion  of  the  Assembly’s  powers 
at  the  expense  of  those  of  the  Governor: 

But  the  facts  .  .  .  are  such  as  convince  us  that  the  dependence 
which  by  the  constitution  the  Colony  ought  to  have  upon  the 
executive  part  of  the  Government  of  the  mother  country  and  the 
Sovereigncy  of  the  Crown  stand  upon  a  very  precarious  foot ,  and 
that  unless  some  effectual  remedy  is  at  a  proper  time  applied  it 
will  be  in  great  danger  of  being  totally  set  aside.  From  these  facts 
it  appears  that  almost  every  act  of  executive  and  legislative  power 
whether  it  be  political,  judicial,  or  military,  is  ordered  and  directed 
by  votes  of  the  General  Court,  in  most  cases  originating  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.169 

Insistence  by  the  House  on  policies  of  this  nature  again 
made  trouble  for  Pownal  when,  in  the  spring  of  1758,  he  re¬ 
quested  the  Assembly’s  co-operation  with  the  campaign 
plans,  as  outlined  for  the  coming  year  by  Loudoun.  Then  it 
was  that  questions  like  the  following  were  asked  by  the 
representatives:  “How  long  are  the  men  to  continue  in 
service?  What  officers  are  they  to  be  under?  Where  is  the 
command  to  be?  How  are  they  to  be  paid,  armed,  and 
victualled?  What  is  their  destination?  What  will  be  the 
whole  force,  when  they  shall  have  joined  it?”170  Loudoun’s 

167  Journal,  Jan.  25,  1758. 

168  Life  of  Thomas  Pownal,  sujp.  cit.,  p.  116. 

169  Board  of  Trade  to  Pownal,  Nov.  22,  1758,  ibid.,  p.  131. 

170  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  68/f.  Journal,  March  2  to  11,  1758. 


146 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


sudden  recall,  however,  and  the  accession  to  power  of  William 
Pitt,  together  with  a  knowledge  of  the  latter’s  plans  for  the 
subjugation  of  Canada,  brought  co-operation  surpassing  all 
expectation.  On  the  day  after  Pitt’s  plans  became  known, 
there  were  voted  7,000  men,  of  which  number  6,925  were  act¬ 
ually  raised.  In  the  following  year  there  were  provided  5,000 
in  addition.171  Pitt,  however,  then  expected  at  least  as  many 
as  had  been  raised  in  the  year  preceding,  but  Pownal’s  efforts 
brought  only  a  statement  from  the  representatives  of  the 
enormous  expenses  borne  by  the  province  in  the  past  year, 
amounting  to  £190,000  sterling,  and  a  complaint  that  after 
the  supreme  effort  that  had  been  made  to  raise  the  7,000 
men,  it  was  not  fair  to  expect  as  many  more  at  so  early  a 
date.  In  order  to  make  up  the  additional  2,000  that  were 
requested,  the  House  raised  the  bounty  on  enlistments,  but 
would  pass  no  legislation  for  impressment.172 

The  great  danger  from  the  French,  the  unprecedented 
military  success,  and  the  consequent  prominence  of  war  meas¬ 
ures,  had  kept  in  the  background  the  old  disputes  regarding 
prerogative.  Moreover,  when  controversy  had  threatened, 
because  of  the  Assembly’s  insistence  upon  specifying  the 
manner  of  application  for  military  appropriations,  Governor 
Pownal  had  followed  Shirley’s  policy  of  avoiding  dispute. 
As  a  result,  conflicts  during  Pownal’s  administration  were  in¬ 
frequent  and  of  comparatively  trifling  importance.  On  the 
whole,  his  official  conduct  was  acceptable  to  the  colony,  and 
the  era  may  be  regarded  in  general  as  one  of  good  feeling. 
After  the  fall  of  Quebec,  Pownal  requested  leave  to  return 
to  England,  but  early  in  1760  received  word  of  his  transfer 
to  South  Carolina,  chiefly,  it  is  said,  because  of  his  sympathy 
with  the  colonial  view  of  sovereignty.  Both  Houses  were 
present  at  his  embarkation,  and  the  representatives,  who 

171  Journal,  March  11,  1758  (7,000  voted);  Jan.  11,  1759  (6,925  raised);  March 
11,  1759. 

172  Journal,  March  11  and  April  17,  1759,  pp.  273,  336  f. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS 


147 


had  made  an  address  of  regret  at  his  departure,  offered  him 
passage  in  the  provincial  frigate.173  The  following  quotation 
from  this  address  is  interesting  chiefly  because  of  its  indica¬ 
tion  of  those  qualities  that  were  regarded  as  essential  in  a 
good  Governor: 

‘Tis  your  knowledge  of  the  country,  the  mildness  and  probity 
of  your  administration;  attention  to  public  economy,  spirited 
efforts  in  every  measure  for  his  Majesty’s  service;  care  of  our  civil 
and  religious  liberties,  and  tender  concern  for  the  distresses  of  this 
barrier  colony,  that  have  endeared  you  to  the  good  people  of  this 
province.174 

173  Journal,  June  15,  1758;  Jan.  6,  1759,  pp.  64$\,  141Jf.,  March  24,  and  June  3, 
1760;  Life  of  Thomas  Pownal,  sup.  cit.,  pp.  144,  152,  I55ff. 

174  Journal,  March  24,  1760. 


CHAPTER  III 


DEFINITE  REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL, 

1760-1776 

During  all  these  years,  aroused  by  the  aggression  of 
Belcher,  encouraged  by  the  yielding  of  Shirley,  unchecked 
during  the  administrations  of  the  Lieutenant-Governor 
Spencer  Phips,  as  well  as  of  the  Council  and  even  of  Gov¬ 
ernor  Pownal,  the  Assembly  had  become  more  and  more 
strongly  convinced  of  its  powers.  Victory  in  the  late  war, 
which  left  to  Massachusetts  the  leadership  among  the 
colonies,  strengthened  this  conviction.  As  a  result,  the 
restraints  imposed  by  royal  instructions  had  become  in¬ 
creasingly  obnoxious.  A  storm  was  beginning  to  gather 
chiefly  around  the  requirement  of  a  “saving  clause”  which 
made  all  unusual  legislation  depend  upon  the  King’s  pleas¬ 
ure.  To  the  next  Governor,  Francis  Bernard,  was  left  the 
unpleasant  and  difficult  task  of  checking  encroachments  and 
of  re-establishing  many  of  the  vanished  elements  of  the 
King’s  prerogative. 

The  new  Governor  exchanged  his  comparatively  peaceful 
Government  of  New  Jersey  for  that  of  Massachusetts  at  a 
time  when  the  materials  of  rebellion  were  about  to  be 
ignited.  Quite  sanguine,  however,  of  a  peaceful  adminis¬ 
tration,  he  thus  wrote  concerning  his  appointment:  “As  for 
the  people,  I  am  assured  I  may  depend  upon  a  quiet  and 
easy  administration.  I  shall  have  no  points  of  government 
to  dispute  about,  no  schemes  of  self-interest  to  pursue.”1 
His  expectations  were  disappointed.  The  elation  and  the 
consciousness  of  provincial  strength  that  resulted  from 

1  Bernard  to  Barrington,  April  19,  1760,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence , 

p.  11. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  149 


perfect  military  success,  as  well  as  the  consequent  cessation 
of  anxieties  inseparable  from  the  preparation  of  war  meas¬ 
ures,  had  been  the  chief  concern.  With  the  close  of  the  con¬ 
flict  there  was  leisure  to  note  every  restraint,  and  every 
policy  that  might  even  tend  to  develop  into  a  check  upon 
the  growing  sense  of  independence.  Thenceforth,  political 
discussion  turned  chiefly  on  the  question  of  prerogative. 
With  each  day  the  strength  of  the  anti-prerogative  party 
grew  more  formidable.  And  the  Governor,  with  prosperity 
on  the  increase,  and  no  war  worries  to  obscure  the  issue, 
was  compelled  soon  to  manifest  his  sentiments  on  the 
all-important  topic.  When  he  took  his  stand  on  the 
side  of  prerogative,  trouble  immediately  began.  The  anti¬ 
prerogative  party  was  further  irritated  by  the  appointment, 
as  Lieutenant-Governor,  of  Thomas  Hutchinson,  a  leader 
of  the  conservatives,  and  an  official  strongly  opposed  to  the 
growing  independence  of  the  House.2  Governor  Bernard’s 
entry  into  Boston  took  place,  according  to  his  own  descrip¬ 
tion,  “in  a  very  magnificent  manner.”  Because,  since 
Burnet’s  time,  he  was  the  first  Governor  to  arrive  by  land, 
“the  ceremony  was  in  a  manner  new.”3 

Trouble  commenced  when  customs  officials  began  rigidly 
to  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  Sugar  Act,  which  in  other 
colonies  was  being  violated  with  impunity.  People  were 
provoked  not  only  by  the  enforcement,  but  by  the  fact  that 
owing  to  graft,  a  very  small  portion  of  the  fees  and  forfeit¬ 
ures  were  going  to  the  royal  exchequer.4  Soon,  therefore, 

2  George  Richards  Minot,  History  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay , 
II,  78/. 

3  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Aug.  7,  1760,  ibid.,  p.  15.  Bernard  took  over  the 
actual  administration  of  the  colony  on  Aug.  2,  1760.  Cf.  C.  M.  Andrews,  List 
of  Commissions ,  Instructions,  and  Additional  Instructions  issued  to  the  Royal  Gov¬ 
ernors  and  Others  in  America,  in  Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Associa¬ 
tion  for  1911  (pp.  393-598),  p.  401. 

4  Bernard  to - ,  Jan.  19,  1761.  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard  College 

Library,  I,  296. 


150 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


a  case  protesting  illegal  collection  of  fees  and  forfeitures 
was  brought  into  the  General  Court.  When  a  committee 
reported  that  the  province  had  been  defrauded  of  nearly 
£500,  and  authorized  the  treasurer,  if  not  paid  within  one 
month  after  demand,  to  sue  for  the  amount,  both  Houses 
approved.  Governor  Bernard,  contending  that  suit  should 
be  brought  only  by  the  King’s  attorney -general,  negatived 
this  resolution.  The  House,  however,  refused  either  to  trust 
a  Crown  official  with  the  case  or  to  reconsider  the  resolution. 
After  protest,  Bernard  yielded  the  point;  but  as  judge  in 
the  subsequent  trial,  he  appointed  Chief  Justice  Hutchinson. 
When  Hutchinson  decided  against  the  province,  it  was  sus¬ 
pected  that  the  appointment  had  been  arranged  especially 
to  secure  this  defeat  for  the  anti-prerogative  party.5  Toward 
the  middle  of  1762,  after  a  final  altercation  over  the  Gov¬ 
ernor’s  veto  of  a  bill  intended  to  substitute  a  new  and  less 
obnoxious  kind  of  writ  in  place  of  the  old  writs  of  assistance 
granted  by  Parliament  to  customs  officials,  the  dispute 
subsided.  It  was  about  this  time  that  Bernard  formed  the 
determination  to  interfere  as  little  as  possible  in  public 
affairs,  declaring  that  he  had  “long  thought  that  in  general 
Governors  impaired  their  own  authority  by  interfering  too 
much  in  Provincial  Councils,”  and  lamenting  that  he  was  a 
“man  more  Sinned  against  than  sinning.”  Otis  Junior,  who 
had  been  advocate  for  those  accused  in  the  admiralty  and 
customs  disturbances,  was  at  this  time  keeping  up  the 
opposition  in  the  Assembly.6 

During  the  summer  of  1762  trouble  of  a  different  nature 
occurred.  With  the  concurrence  of  the  Council  only,  Gov¬ 
ernor  Bernard  appropriated  money  for  military  purposes. 

5  Journal,  Jan.  31,  1760,  pp.  241jf.;  Minot,  op.  cit.,  II,  82-87;  Winsor,  op. 
tit.,  V,  155. 

6  Bernard  to  Barrington,  May  1,  1762,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 
pp.  51,  52;  Bernard  to  J.  Pownal,  March  30,  1761,  Bernard  Letters ,  Sparks,  IV, 

Harvard  College  Library,  I,  304;  Bernard  to  - ,  July  6,  1761,  ibidem ,  I, 

322. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  151 


In  the  fall  session,  therefore,  when  he  requested  still  further 
supplies  for  the  same  object,  the  House  remonstrated  against 
his  usurpation  of  “their  most  darling  Privilege;  the  Right 
of  Originating  all  Taxes,”  and  against  his  thus  “annihilating 
one  Branch  of  the  Legislature.”  The  address  proceeded: 
“It  would  be  of  little  Consequence  to  the  People,  whether 
they  were  subject  to  George  or  Louis,  the  King  of  Great 
Britain  or  the  French  King,  if  both  were  as  arbitrary  as  both 
would  be,  if  both  could  levy  taxes  without  Parliament.” 7 
Privately,  Governor  Bernard  advised  erasion  of  this  flippant 
reference  to  the  King  —  which  was  done  just  previous  to 
the  order  for  prorogation.  In  his  address  on  this  occasion, 
Governor  Bernard  demonstrated  the  absurdity  of  the  As¬ 
sembly’s  charges  of  an  arbitrary  use  of  power  and  of  en¬ 
croachment  on  their  taxation  privileges,  emphasizing  the 
fact  that  during  a  recess  of  the  General  Court  certain  crises 
might  arise  in  which  immediate  action  would  be  required. 
The  prorogation  prevented  a  reply  at  that  time,  but  in  the 
next  session  consideration  of  the  remonstrance  was  resumed, 
“lest  our  Constituents  and  the  whole  World  might  infer  from 
our  Silence,  that  we  had  tacitly  conceded  that  the  Governor, 
with  the  Advice  of  the  Council,  in  a  Recess  of  the  General 
Court,”  really  possessed  the  powers  at  issue.  Acknowledging 
the  necessity  of  some  discretionary  power  of  disbursement, 
the  Assembly  cited  the  example  and  the  regulations  of 
Parliament,  which  always  made  specific  application  of  ap¬ 
propriations,  and  which  permitted  “unlimited,  absolute 
Power”  only  “upon  Occasions  of  evident  Necessity,  when 
the  very  Being  of  a  Government  is  in  imminent  Danger.8 
Any  departure  from  this  principle  would  tend  to: 

7  Journal,  Sept.  14  and  15,  1762,  pp.  101,  104.  After  the  capture  of  St.  Johns, 
Newfoundland,  the  French  were  threatening  the  safety  of  fishing  towns  in  the 
vicinity.  The  Assembly  not  sitting,  Bernard  expended  about  £500  in  equipping 
the  provincial  sloop;  cf.  also  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  98. 

8  Journal,  Sept.  18,  1762,  pp.  121,  143.  Prorogued  Sept.  18,  1762,  convened 
Jan.  17,  1763.  Cf.  ibid.,  pp.  122,  137,  144. 


152 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Render  Parliament  altogether  useless,  and  Princes  arbitrary,  by 
lodging  in  the  Crown,  and  in  the  Ministers,  an  absolute  and  un¬ 
controllable  Power  of  raising  Money  upon  the  People,  which  by 
the  wise  Constitution  of  Great  Britain  is  and  can  be  only  lodged 
with  safety  in  the  Legislature.9 

Bernard,  however,  avoided  controversy  by  reminding  the 
House  that  this  message,  coming  as  it  did  in  continuation 
of  proceedings  that  were  closed  by  prorogation,  was  out  of 
order.10  This  was  the  first  real  controversy  in  his  adminis¬ 
tration. 

The  well-known  disputes  over  the  legality  of  writs  of 
assistance  need  in  this  connection  only  passing  mention. 
Through  them  opposition  to  the  prerogative  grew  stronger 
and  more  vindictive.  At  the  trial  in  this  connection  Hutch¬ 
inson  again  presided;  after  a  deferred  judgment  the  writs 
were  finally,  through  advices  from  England,  sustained.  It 
was  largely  from  proceedings  of  this  nature  that  there  grew 
up  the  feeling  against  England  that  finally  resulted  in  the 
American  Revolution.  By  the  “vindication”  speech  of 
James  Otis  against  the  writs  a  spirit  of  rebellion  was  fostered. 
He  played  upon  the  people’s  sorest  grievances,  reminding 
them  that  the  colonists  and  the  colonies  were  not  solely  for 
the  advantage  of  the  King.  “Kings  were  made  for  the 
good  of  the  people,  not  the  people  for  them.”  The  writs 
themselves  he  denounced  as:  “Instruments  of  slavery  on 
the  one  hand,  and  villany  on  the  other,  .  .  .  the  worst 
instrument  of  arbitrary  power,  the  most  destructive  of 
English  liberty,  and  the  fundamental  principles  of  law,  that 
ever  was  found  in  an  English  law-book.”  He  also  warned 
“all  plantation  governors”  not  to  labor,  “as  most  of  them 
did,  ...  in  extending  the  prerogative  beyond  all  bounds.”11 

9  Journal ,  Jan.  18,  1763,  p.  145. 

10  Journal ,  Jan.  26,  1763. 

11  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United  States,  1891  ed.,  II,  553;  Minot,  ibid., 
p.  92. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  153 


The  pulpit  also  made  the  King’s  Governor  a  target: 

I  do  not  say  that  our  invaluable  rights  have  been  struck  at; 
but  if  they  have,  they  are  not  wrested  from  us;  and  may  Heaven 
blast  the  designs,  if  not  the  soul,  of  that  man,  whoever  he  be 
among  us  that  shall  have  hardiness  to  attack  them.12 

Shortly  after  these  events,  Governor  Bernard  warned  the 
Assembly  against  being  influenced  by  declamations  regarding 
danger  to  the  people’s  liberties,  denouncing  them  as  insinua¬ 
tions  which  might  easily  have  been  true  under  Charles  or 
James,  but  never  under  the  Georges.13 

In  this  situation  came  the  welcome  news  of  the  approach¬ 
ing  treaty  of  1763,  and  with  it,  peace  in  the  province  and 
harmony  in  the  legislature.  The  Assembly  even  at  that 
time  expressed  the  hope  that  Bernard  might  be  ‘Tong  con¬ 
tinued  at  the  Head  of  the  Government.”  James  Otis  took 
occasion  to  rejoice  in  the  glory  of  Great  Britain,  and  in  the 
union  of  Massachusetts  with  that  country:  “The  true  inter¬ 
ests  of  Great  Britain  and  her  plantations  are  mutual,  and 
what  God  in  his  Providence  has  united,  let  no  man  dare  to 
pull  asunder.”  13“ 

But  England’s  war  debt  of  one  hundred  forty  million 
pounds  had  to  be  met,  and  the  method  of  discharging  it 
soon  caused  clouds  to  gather.  Toward  the  end  of  the  year 
1763,  the  Governor  received  orders  to  report  on  the  popula¬ 
tion  “with  all  the  proper  distinctions  thereof.”  Very  re¬ 
luctantly,  and  not  without  strong  suspicion  of  the  motives 
behind  the  measure,  the  Assembly  passed  the  necessary  law. 
A  great  part  of  the  province,  however,  disregarded  the  enact¬ 
ment.  What  returns  were  made  were  of  little  use.  Bernard 
afterward  complained  that  he  was  nearly  three  years  carrying 
into  execution  a  work  performed  by  Connecticut  in  less  than 

12  Bancroft,  ibid.,  p.  5G1,  Mayliew’s  Thanksgiving  Sermon  in  1762. 

13  Minot,  op.  cit.,  II,  99ff. 

13“  Journal,  Feb.  15,  1763,  p.  245.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  102. 


154 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


three  months.  To  facilitate  immediate  enforcement  a  new 
bill  was  soon  passed.13^ 

In  vain  the  Assembly  endeavored  about  the  same  time  to 
prevent  renewal  of  the  expired  Sugar  Act.  A  statement  was 
drawn  up  of  the  Rights  of  the  British  Colonies  in  general , 
and  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay  in  particular ,  with 
some  Observations  on  the  Act  of  the  sixth  of  George  the  Second , 
commonly  called  the  Sugar  Act ,14  The  renewal  came,  how¬ 
ever,  and  even  though  not  strictly  enforced  engendered 
further  opposition  from  the  anti-prerogative  element. 
Rumors  of  the  detested  Stamp  Act  added  to  the  flame;  and 
now  for  the  first  time  in  its  history,  the  House  acted  inde¬ 
pendently  of  the  Governor  and  Council  by  sending  to  the 
provincial  agent  in  England  instructions  prepared  by  James 
Otis  upon  the  rights  of  British  colonies.  Then  also  there 
appears  for  the  first  time,  contained  in  these  instructions, 
definite  expression  in  the  Journal  of  the  objection  to  taxation 
without  representation.  The  Journal  for  the  preceding  four 
years  of  Governor  Bernard’s  administration  reads  rather 
smoothly.  Suddenly,  in  the  letter  to  the  colonial  agent, 
Mauduit,  is  heard  an  ominous  note.  Its  very  definiteness 
proves  that  it  was  the  expression  of  mature  sentiments 
long  pent  up,  and  now  flung  forth  almost  as  a  challenge  to 
the  home  government.  For  an  executive  who  was  bound  to 
oppose  such  sentiments  and  to  enforce  the  obnoxious  meas¬ 
ures,  the  forecast  was  of  necessity  far  from  encouraging. 
The  news  contained  in  letters  from  Mauduit,  concerning  the 
Sugar  Act,  the  “obliging  of  the  Colonies  to  maintain  an 
army,”  and  taxation  of  the  colonies  by  parliamentary  act, 
was,  in  the  opinion  of  the  House,  “to  the  last  degree  alarm- 
mg. 

136  Journal ,  1763-1764,  pp.  44,  48,  72,  99,  103jf.,  251,  255,  260,  law  proposed 
June  2,  1763,  adopted  Feb.  2,  1764;  cf.  also  entries  for  Feb.  16  and  26,  1765,  pp. 
246,  274. 

14  Journal,  June  8,  1764,  pp.  54,  66;  cf.  also  pp.  72,  77. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  155 


The  Silence  of  the  Province  [in  delaying  reply  to  the  agent’s 
letters  on  these  matters]  should  have  been  imputed  to  any  Cause, 
even  Dispair,  rather  than  be  construed  into  tacit  Cession  of  their 
rights,  or  an  Acknowledgment  of  a  Right  in  the  Parliament  of 
Great-Britain  to  impose  Duties  and  Taxes  upon  a  People,  who 
are  not  represented  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

As  to  “so  burthensome  a  scheme  as  that  of  obliging  the  colonies 
to  maintain  an  Army  .  .  .  What  Merit  could  there  be  in  a  Sub¬ 
mission  to  such  an  unconstitutional  Measure?”  [The  agent  had 
given  reason  to  believe  that  the  colonies  would  submit.] 

The  members  could  not  “conceive  it  to  be  exactly  agreeable  to 
Equity  and  Justice,  that  America  (in  the  words  of  Grenville) 
should  be  at  the  whole  charge  of  its  own  Government  and 
Defence.” 

This  Province  in  particular  had  in  one  Campaigne  on  Foot 
seven  Thousand  Troops.  This  was  a  greater  Levy  for  a  single 
Province,  than  the  three  Kingdoms  have  made  collectively  in  any 
one  Year  since  the  Revolution. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  these  colonies  subsisted  for  more 
than  a  century,  and  defended  themselves  against  the  French  and 
the  Indians  with  very  little  Assistance  from  England. 

Can  it  be  possible  that  the  Duties  to  be  imposed  and  the  Taxes 
to  be  levied,  shall  be  assessed  without  the  Voice  of  Consent  of  one 
American  in  Parliament?  ...  If  we  are  not  represented,  we  are 
Slaves. 

The  actual  laying  of  the  Stamp  Duty,  you  say,  is  deferred  ’till 
next  year,  Mr.  Grenville  being  willing  to  give  the  Provinces  their 
Option  to  raise  that,  or  some  other  equivalent  tax,  desirous,  as  he 
was  pleased  to  express  himself,  “to  consult  the  Ease,  the  Quiet 
and  the  Good-will  of  the  Colonies.” 

...  no  measures  could  be  hit  upon  that  have  a  more  natural 
and  direct  Tendency  to  enervate  those  Principles  than  [these  very 
resolutions]. 

The  kind  offer  of  suspending  this  Stamp  Duty  .  .  .  upon  the 
Condition  you  mention  amounts  to  no  more  than  this,  that  if  the 
Colonies  will  not  tax  themselves  as  they  may  be  directed,  the 
Parliament  will  tax  them. 

Ireland  is  a  conquered  Country,  which  is  not  the  case  with  the 


156 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Northern  Colonies,  except  Canada:  Yet  no  Duties  have  been 
Levied  by  the  British  Parliament  on  Ireland.  No  internal  or 
external  Taxes  have  been  assessed  on  them  but  by  their  own 
Parliament. 

Notice  of  this  letter,  together  with  an  exhortation  to  join 
in  similar  measures  and  sentiments,  was  ordered  to  be  sent 
to  all  the  other  colonies.  This  instance  is  the  first  in  the 
history  of  the  House  wherein  it  acted  independently  of  the 
other  two  branches  of  the  government.15 

After  considerable  discussion  with  the  Council  as  to  content 
of  a  petition  later  sent  to  the  King,  Lords,  and  Commons, 
the  General  Court  was  prorogued  until  the  following  Decern- 
ber.16  The  altercations  in  this  session  were  mostly  with  the 
Council,  relating  chiefly  to  excise  measures  and  to  fees  in 
the  Admiralty  Court  and  Customs  House.17  It  should  also 
be  noted  that  the  Assembly  adopted  the  significant  method 
of  making  grants  to  the  person  appointed  as  the  province 
secretary  rather  than  to  the  office  itself.  The  “one  de¬ 
fault”  of  the  session,  in  Bernard’s  estimation,  was  the  refusal 
of  the  Assembly  to  make  proposed  enlistment  of  900  men 
for  use  against  the  increasingly  aggressive  Indians.  The 
explanation  offered  was  the  heavy  burden  that  already 
oppressed  the  province.18 

The  next  session  opened  on  Jan.  10,  1765,  with  a  con¬ 
gratulatory  address  from  Bernard  on  the  Assembly’s  “Una¬ 
nimity,  Prudence  and  Moderation  in  Times  of  difficulty  and 
distrust,”  and  with  assurance  that  the  recent  petitions,  which 
he  had  himself  recommended  to  the  favour  of  the  King’s 
ministers,  “must  receive  great  Weight  from  the  dutiful 

15  Journal,  June  13,  1764,  pp.  72/  (the  quotation).  Sources  for  preceding  data 
are  in  Journal,  1764-1765,  pp.  77,  109,  111,  114,  126,  129,  133. 

16  Journal,  1764-1765,  pp.  109,  111,  114,  126,  129,  133,  entry  for  Nov.  3,  1764, 
p.  134;  convened  Jan.  10,  1765.  Cf.  p.  141. 

17  Ibid.,  1764-1765,  pp.  51,  253,  257/.,  263/.,  282,  284,  294,  295,  and  passim. 

18  Ibid.,  1764-1765,  pp.  119,  151,  245,  249,  262,  275,  especially  entry  for  March 
6,  1765. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  157 


manner  in  which  they  are  formed.”  18&  The  reply,  however, 
gave  evidence  of  the  rising  storm: 

We  flatter  ourselves  the  Representations  made  therein  will  have 
success  not  only  from  the  dutiful  manner  in  which  they  are  formed, 
but  from  the  necessary  Connection  there  is  between  the  Interests 
of  the  Nation  and  the  success  of  that  Petition.19 

And  they  declared  that  the  “difficulties  of  the  Times”  to 
which  the  Governor  referred  were  due  “to  the  Embarass- 
ments  upon  our  Trade,”  which,  it  was  hoped,  would  soon 
be  removed.  In  a  word,  the  great  topic  of  dispute  was 
Parliament’s  right  to  tax  an  unrepresented  people.  Governor 
Bernard  upheld  the  right.  Thereafter,  even  though  he  added 
the  condition  that  moneys  so  raised  should  be  expended  ex¬ 
clusively  within  and  on  the  colonies,  the  feeling  of  agitation 
and  opposition  fast  increased.20 

The  next  session  opened  on  May  29,  1765,  —  the  same 
month  in  which  news  was  received  of  the  passage  of  the 
Stamp  Act.  Making  no  direct  reference  to  that  act  in  his 
opening  address,  Governor  Bernard  simply  observed  that 
the  long  delayed  “Settlement  of  the  American  Provinces  .  .  . 
must  necessarily  produce  some  Regulations,  which  from 
their  Novelty  only,  will  appear  disagreeable.  But  .  .  . 
they  will  operate  .  .  .  for  the  Benefit  and  Advantage  of  the 
Colonies.”  He  urged  therefore  “a  respectful  Submission  to 
the  Decrees  of  Parliament  .  .  .  the  Sanctuary  of  Liberty 
and  Justice.”  The  House  soon  after  busied  itself  with  plans 
for  the  first  convention  of  delegates  from  all  the  colonies  to 
meet  at  New  York  in  the  following  October,  in  order  to  con¬ 
sult  on  the  “Difficulties  to  which  they  are  and  must  be  re- 

18a  Journal,  Jan.  10,  1765,  p.  143. 

19  Ibid.,  1764-1765,  p.  148. 

20  For  quotations  and  data  in  this  paragraph  cf.  Journal,  1764-1765,  pp.  143, 
148,  149.  Minot,  op.  cit.,  II,  159jf.  Journal,  1765-1766,  pp.  1,  11;  ibid..  May  30, 
1765,  p.  11. 


158 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


duced  by  the  Operation  of  the  Acts  of  Parliament  for  levy¬ 
ing  Duties  and  Taxates  on  the  Colonies,  and  to  consider 
of  a  general  and  united,  dutiful,  loyal  and  humble  Repre¬ 
sentation  of  their  Condition  to  his  Majesty  and  the  Parlia¬ 
ment,  to  implore  Relief.” 21  The  session  was  short,  peaceful, 
and  fruitful;  it  lasted  scarcely  one  week,  during  which 
twenty-three  bills  were  passed.22 

This  harmony,  however,  did  not  extend  to  the  province. 
During  the  summer  of  1765  occurred  the  well-known  public 
manifestations  against  the  Stamp  Act,  —  the  hanging  in 
effigy  of  the  stamp  distributor,  the  attack  upon  his  house, 
and  the  destruction,  with  many  valuable  records,  of  the 
home  of  the  Lieutenant-Governor,  Thomas  Hutchinson. 
About  the  Governor  himself  ominous  rumors  began  to  be 
circulated.  Windows  in  his  house  were  broken  at  night,  and* 
placards  were  placed  on  the  gates.  He  therefore  retired  with 
his  family  to  Castle  William.  “The  Mobs  are  bad,”  he 
wrote,  “but  the  Politicians  are  Worse.”  “A  single  regiment,” 
he  declared,  “would  have  prevented  this  insurrection.”23 

Bernard’s  opening  address  in  the  fall  session  that  followed 
these  events  admitted  his  powerlessness  to  cope  with  the 
disordered  conditions  and  asked  aid  from  the  Assembly.  As 
to  the  Stamp  Act,  he  had  “only  to  say  that  it  is  an  Act  of 
the  Parliament  of  Great-Britain,  and  as  such  ought  to  be 
obeyed  by  the  subjects  of  Great-Britain.”  24  He  also  empha¬ 
sized  the  consequences  of  resistance,  and  the  difficulties  in 
judicial  procedure,  in  trade,  and  in  business  activities  that 

21  Journal,  June  25,  1765,  p.  109.  The  petition  had  been  drafted  by  Hutchinson 
himself.  The  House  changed  the  word  'privileges  to  right.  There  was  conflict  then 
over  the  words  until  the  Council  proposed  liberties,  which  was  accepted  by  all. 

22  Met  May  29,  1765;  prorogued  June  6,  1765.  Cf.  Journal,  1765-1766,  pp.  1, 
11,  109,  111. 

23  Journal,  Sept.  25,  1765,  p.  122.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  120jf. 
Bernard  to  Thomas  Pownal,  Aug.  18  and  19,  1765,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks,  IV, 
Harvard  College  Library,  IV,  10,  11;  also  Bernard  to  R.  Jackson,  Aug.  24,  1765, 
ibid.,  IV,  18. 

24  Journal,  Sept.  25,  1765,  p.  119.  Session  began  on  this  date. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  159 


would  result  from  rejection  of  the  stamps.  Recompense  also 
was  urged  for  the  losers  in  the  Stamp  Act  riots,  with  par¬ 
ticular  reference  to  the  Lieutenant-Governor.  On  the  follow¬ 
ing  day,  after  reminding  the  Assembly  of  the  shipload  of 
recently  arrived  stamped  papers,  and  of  the  resignation  of 
the  distributor,  Oliver,  Governor  Bernard  requested  advice 
and  assistance  from  the  House  on  the  preservation  of  the 
stamps.  No  action  resulted.  Then,  in  order  to  give  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  fuller  attendance  and  for  mature  consideration, 
he  ordered  an  adjournment  of  four  weeks.25 

So  violent  became  the  demonstrations  during  this  interval, 
that  the  authority  of  the  Governor  and  of  all  civil  govern¬ 
ment  was  practically  at  an  end.  In  the  streets,  walking 
about  with  impunity,  appeared  even  ringleaders  in  the  recent 
riots.  Endeavors  to  suppress  pageants  of  protest  booked  for 
November  first  were  unsuccessful.  “All  real  power/’  wrote 
Bernard,  three  weeks  after  the  Stamp  Act  went  into  effect, 
“  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  out  of  which  are  formed 
two  companies  of  men  under  Captains,  etc,,  publicly  coun¬ 
tenanced  and  supported  by  some  Gentlemen  of  the  first 
fortunes.” 26 

When  the  General  Court  reconvened,  the  day  on  which 
the  Stamp  Act  was  to  become  effective  was  scarcely  one 
week  distant  —  Nov.  1,  1765.  The  members  immediately 
objected  to  the  previous  sudden  adjournment,  took  ex¬ 
ception  to  every  proposition  in  the  Govenor’s  address, 
considered  that  part  of  it  which  referred  to  the  disorders  in 
Boston  as  an  insinuation  of  their  implication,  and  therefore 
“unkind”  and  a  “reflection  on  the  province,”  and  refused 
to  make  the  suggested  compensation.  After  professions  of 
profoundest  loyalty  to  Great  Britain,  they  declared: 

25  Journal,  Sept.  25  and  26,  1765,  pp.  118/.,  124/.,  129. 

26  Bernard  to  Lords  of  Trade,  Oct.  12,  1765,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard 
College  Library,  IV,  169.  Bernard  to  H.  S.  Conway,  Nov.  25,  1765,  ibid.,  p.  170. 


160 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


It  by  no  means  appertains  to  us  to  presume  to  adjust  the 
boundaries  of  the  power  of  Parliament;  but  boundaries  there  un¬ 
doubtedly  are.  We  hope  we  may  without  offence,  put  your  Excel¬ 
lency  in  mind  of  that  most  grievous  sentence  of  excommunication 
solemnly  denounced  by  the  church  in  the  name  of  the  sacred 
Trinity,  in  the  presence  of  King  Henry  the  Third,  and  the  estates 
of  the  realm,  against  all  those  who  should  make  statutes,  or  ob¬ 
serve  them  being  made  contrary  to  the  liberties  of  Magna 
Charta.27 

There  are  certain  original  inherent  rights  belonging  to  the  people 
which  the  parliament  itself  cannot  divest  them  of  consistent  with 
their  own  constitution;  among  these  is  the  right  of  representation 
in  the  same  body  which  exercises  the  power  of  taxation.28 

We  deeply  regret  it  that  the  Parliament  has  seen  fit  to  pass 
such  an  act  as  the  Stamp  Act;  ...  we  must  beg  your  Excellency 
to  excuse  us  from  doing  anything  to  assist  in  the  execution  of  it. 
.  .  .  Such  a  conduct  in  us  would  be  to  oppose  the  sentiments  of 
the  people  whom  we  represent,  and  the  declared  instruction  of 
most  of  them.29 

Then  follows  a  long  list  of  objections,  concluding: 

And  what  is  the  worst  of  all  evils,  if  his  Majesty’s  American 
subjects  are  not  to  be  govern’d,  according  to  the  known  stated 
rules  of  the  constitution,  as  those  in  Britain  are,  it  is  greatly  to  be 
feared  that  their  minds  may  in  time  become  disaffected;  which 
we  cannot  even  entertain  the  most  distant  thought  of  without  the 
greatest  abhorrence.30 

And  to  the  Governor  himself  was  imputed  partial  responsi¬ 
bility  for  the  Act: 

27  The  appeal  in  this  case  is  strange.  So  thoroughly  detested  by  the  Puritans 
was  the  Papacy  and  all  connected  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  that  it  seldom 
received  even  respectful  mention.  This  citation,  therefore,  in  support  of  the  As¬ 
sembly’s  point,  of  an  essentially  papal  and  Catholic  institution,  is  rather  surprising. 

28  Journal,  Oct.  24,  1765,  pp.  133/f. 

29  Ibid.,  Oct.  24,  1765,  p.  135. 

30  Ibid.,  p.  136. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  161 


We  are  truly  sorry  that  your  Excellency  has  never  made  it  a 
part  of  your  business  to  form  any  judgment  of  this  act;  especially 
as  you  have  long  known  what  uneasiness  the  most  distant  prospect 
of  it  gave  to  his  Majesty’s  good  subjects  in  America,  and  of  this 
province  of  which  you  are  substituted  to  be  the  head  and  father; 
had  your  Excellency  thought  it  proper  to  have  seasonably  entered 
into  a  disquisition  of  the  policy  of  it  you  would,  we  doubt  not, 
have  seen  that  the  people’s  fears  were  not  without  good  founda¬ 
tion;  and  the  love  and  concern  which  you  profess  to  have  for  them, 
as  well  as  your  duty  to  his  Majesty,  whose  faithful  subjects  they 
are,  might  have  been  the  most  powerful  motives  to  your  Excellency 
to  have  expressed  your  sentiments  of  it  early  enough  to  those 
whose  influence  brought  it  into  being.31 

Two  days  before  the  Stamp  Act  was  to  become  effective 
the  House  adopted  a  set  of  defiant  resolves,  among  which, 
by  way  of  summary,  was  the  following: 

Resolved ,  as  a  just  Conclusion  from  some  of  the  foregoing  Re¬ 
solves,  That  all  Acts  made,  by  any  Power  whatever,  other  than 
the  General  Assembly  of  this  Province,  imposing  Taxes  on  the 
Inhabitants  are  Infringements  of  our  inherent  and  unalienable 
Rights,  as  Men  and  British  Subjects;  and  render  void  the  most 
valuable  Declarations  of  our  Charter ,32 

The  Governor  was  at  that  time  suffering  considerable 
trepidation  lest  the  resolves,  which  in  his  estimation 
amounted  to  a  suspension  of  an  Act  of  Parliament,  should 
be  submitted  to  him.  If  so,  he  intended  to  quit  the  govern¬ 
ment  because  he  could  not  consent,  and  he  dared  not  refuse.33 

It  was  immediately  afterward  that  James  Otis,  who  had 
been  with  the  committee  sent  to  New  York  to  confer  with 
the  other  colonies  on  concerted  action,  returned  and  pre- 

31  Journal,  Oct.  24,  1765,  pp.  133/.,  135,  136. 

32  Ibid.,  Oct.  29,  1765,  p.  153. 

33  Bernard  to - ,  Oct.  30,  1765,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard  College 

Library,  IV,  78. 


162 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


sented  the  “  Proceedings  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Con¬ 
gress  at  New  York.34 

About  the  same  time  it  was  discovered  that  Governor 
Bernard  had  paid  for  certain  military  expenses  without  the 
knowledge  or  approval  of  the  Assembly.  A  remonstrance 
was  immediately  voted,  in  which  the  procedure  was  declared 
to  be  “an  High  infraction  of  the  Rights  of  this  House,”  an 
implication  of  “very  injurious  distrust  of  the  independent 
Companies”  already  assigned  to  the  work  which  the  Gover¬ 
nor  had  undertaken  to  provide  for,  that  is,  the  defense  of 
Castle  William.35  This  was  followed  by  an  address  from 
the  Governor  in  which  there  are  indications  that  he  had 
been  deeply  affected  and  keenly  hurt  by  the  tone  and  con¬ 
tent  of  the  above  mentioned  message  from  the  House.  He 
declared  himself  “much  injured”  by  sentiments  “conceived 
in  terms  so  different”  from  the  usual  respectful  address,  and 
containing  “unfair  arguments”  and  “groundless  insinua¬ 
tions”  designed  “to  misrepresent.”  Then,  as  follows,  he 
stated  the  position  of  many  a  royal  Governor: 

What  have  I  done  to  deserve  this?  I  have  happen’d  to  be  the 
Governor  of  this  province  at  a  Time  when  the  Parliament  has 
thought  proper  to  enact  a  Taxation  of  the  Colonies:  It  is  not 
pretended  that  I  have  promoted  this  Tax;  nor  can  it  with  any 
Truth  be  pretended  that  I  have  had  it  in  my  Power  to  have  opposed 
it  by  any  Means  whatsoever.  However  when  the  Act  was  pass’d 
it  brought  upon  me  a  necessary  Duty  which,  it  seems,  did  not 
coincide  with  the  Opinions  of  the  People.  This  is  my  Offence;  but 
it  is  really  the  Offence  of  my  Office;  and  against  that  you  should 
have  expressed  your  Resentment  and  not  against  my  Person.  If 
I  could  have  dispensed  with  my  Duty  perhaps  I  might  have 
pleased  you;  but  then  I  must  have  condemned  myself  and  been 

34  Journal,  Nov.  1,  1765,  p.  163.  One  of  the  three  commissioners  refused  to 
sign  the  proceedings  of  the  Congress  and  left  before  business  was  completed.  Cf. 
Journal,  1765-1766,  p.  254. 

36  Journal,  Nov.  4  and  5,  1765,  pp.  166,  170. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  163 


condemned  by  my  Royal  Master.  I  cannot  purchase  your  Favour 
at  so  dear  a  Rate. 

To  justify  your  unkind  Treatment  of  me  you  charge  me  with 
Unkindness  towards  the  Province.  ...  You  intimate  that  if  I  had 
had  the  Love  and  Concern  for  the  People  which  I  profess,  I  should 
have  expressed  my  Sentiments  of  the  Act  early  enough  to  those 
whose  Influence  brought  it  into  Being.  But  from  whence  do  you 
learn  that  I  have  had  any  opportunity  to  express  such  Sentiments? 
Do  you  imagine  that  I  take  the  Liberty  of  obtruding  my  Advice 
to  His  Majesty’s  Ministers  unasked  and  unexpected,  and  in  a 
Business  belonging  to  a  Department  with  which  I  have  not  the 
honor  to  correspond? 

If  I  wanted  to  apologize  for  my  general  Conduct  in  this  Govern¬ 
ment,  I  need  only  apply  to  your  Registers,  where  I  shall  find 
frequent  Instances  of  the  Approbation  of  my  Administration. 
And,  so  far  as  an  upright  Intention  and  a  diligent  Exercise  of  my 
Abilities  will  go,  I  have  deserved  them.  It  is  not  much  above  a 
Year  since  you  thought  proper  by  a  special  Request  to  desire  me 
to  be  your  Advocate  for  particular  Purposes:  If  I  was  at  Liberty 
to  make  public  my  Execution  of  that  Commission,  I  should  make 
those  blush  who  would  persuade  you  that  I  am  not  a  real  Friend 
to  the  Interests  and  especially  to  the  Trade  of  this  People.36 

After  the  Stamp  Act  had  been  in  force  for  exactly  one 
week,  Governor  Bernard  ordered  a  further  prorogation  until 
Jan.  15,  1766.  During  the  ensuing  interval  business  was 
practically  at  a  standstill;  judicial  process,  for  lack  of 
properly  stamped  documents,  ceased;  town  meetings  in 
Boston  fostered  the  growing  defection,  with  the  slogan  “all 
power  is  from  the  people;’5  the  people  were  without  means 
of  redress,  and  the  possible  consequences  of  the  universal 
discontent  became  really  alarming.37  Governor  Bernard’s 
experiences  can  be  inferred  from  his  own  words: 

36  Journal ,  November,  1765,  pp.  187,  188,  189. 

37  Bernard  to  Lords  of  Trade,  Dec.  19,  1765,  Bernard  Letters ,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard 
College  Library,  IV,  180.  Journal,  ibid.,  p.  190.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts, 
III,  pp.  142^. 


164 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


For  near  3  months  I  have  been  under  great  difficulties  and  not 
without  danger;  Once  my  house  was  invested  (The  same  night 
the  Lieut.  Governor’s  house  was  destroyed)  but  preserved  by  the 
remonstrances  of  the  Neighbors,  Ourselves  being  at  the  Castle; 
twice  have  I  sent  away  any  paper,  plate  etc.  Once  I  expected  to 
be  obliged  to  quit  the  Province  for  several  days  together;  but  the 
peremptoriness  of  my  instructions  made  me  desirous  of  trying  every 
experiment  first,  &  I  got  over  that  difficulty.  Even  now  I  am  in 
continual  expectation  of  fresh  disturbances  arising  of  which  I  may 
partake  more  or  less,  But  I  have  done  my  duty  tho’  it  has  been  a 
severe  one  this  time  I  have  waged  a  most  unequal  war,  &  can 
hardly  now  procure  the  liberty  of  remaining  Neutral  without  pre¬ 
tending  to  exercise  any  real  Authority.38 

At  the  meeting  in  January,  1766,  the  Governor’s  short 
opening  address  reminded  the  members  that  his  office  would 
prevent  approval  of  any  unlawful  bill.  This  was  a  warning 
against  the  adoption  of  measures  aimed  at  the  Stamp  Act. 
With  far  more  aggressiveness  than  ever  was  manifested  by 
preceding  Assemblies,  the  House  took  up  the  Governor’s 
address  on  the  occasion  of  the  prorogation,  declaring  it  an 
“undue  Exercise  of  the  Prerogative”  to  say  things  “which 
bear  hard”  and  then  to  prevent  a  reply  by  discontinuing  the 
session.  The  insinuations  in  their  previous  message  were 
reiterated,  and  they  were  determined  openly  to  oppose  the 
late  Act  of  Parliament  “because  they  plainly  saw  that  their 
essential  unalienable  Right  of  Representation,  and  of  Trials 
by  Juries,  the  very  Foundation  of  the  British  Constitution 
was  infringed  and  even  annihilated  by  it.”  39  The  Governor 
was  again  censured  for  taking  no  measures  to  prevent  the 
execution  act,  and  was  even  indirectly  accused  of  participa¬ 
tion  in  its  promotion.  Pointblank,  the  announcement  was 
made: 

38  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Nov.  23,  1765,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 
p.  102. 

39  Journal,  Jan.  17,  1766,  pp.  198,  200;  cf.  also  Jan.  15  and  16,  1766,  pp.  191, 
193. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  165 


The  Courts  of  Justice  must  be  open,  open  immediately,  and  the 
Law  the  great  Rule  of  Right  in  every  county  .  .  .  executed. 
Stopping  the  course  of  justice  is  a  grievance  which  this  House  must 
inquire  into,  .  .  .  Justice  must  be  fully  administered  through  the 
province,  by  which  the  shocking  Effects,  which  your  excellency 
apprehended  from  the  People’s  non-compliance  with  the  Stamp 
Act,  will  be  prevented.40 

Not  long  afterward  a  committee  reported  as  serious 
grievances  the  fact  that  the  Governor  and  the  Council, 
contrary  to  the  desire  of  the  House,  had  printed  the  Stamp 
Act  and  the  Mutiny  Act;  also  that  they  had  held  weekly  a 
“Privy  Council.”  Their  defiance  was  further  indicated  in 
a  resolve  that,  “The  Judges,  and  justices,  and  all  other 
pub  lick  officers  in  this  province,  ought  to  proceed  in  the 
discharge  of  their  several  functions  as  usual.”  41  Governor 
Bernard  would  have  negatived  this  resolve,  but  was  saved 
the  consequent  embarrassing  situation  when  the  Council  re¬ 
fused  concurrence.42  The  remaining  month  of  the  session 
was  wdthout  dispute;  business  regarded  chiefly  domestic 
concerns. 

Before  the  new  election  of  1766,  news  had  come  of  the 
repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act,  and  of  Governor  Bernard’s  letter 
to  the  ministry  urging  the  same.  The  feeling  against  him 
was  nevertheless  maintained,  for  it  was  learned  that  he  had 
urged  the  repeal,  not  as  a  right,  but  as  a  concession.  The 
session  opened  rather  inauspiciously  when  Bernard  vetoed 
the  choice  of  James  Otis  as  speaker.  Otis  was  then  elected 
to  the  Council,  when  the  choice,  together  with  that  of  five 
other  anti-prerogative  men,  was  also  negatived.  Hutchinson, 

40  Journal,  pp.  200jf.  Posted  in  the  Town  House,  under  the  Council  Chamber 
appeared  the  following  notice:  “Open  your  Courts  and  let  Justice  prevail,  Open 
your  Offices  and  let  not  Trade  fail.  For  if  those  Men  in  Power  will  not  act.  We’ll 
get  some  that  will  in  actual  fact.”  Cf.  Bernard  to  Lords  of  Trade,  Dec.  19,  1765, 
Postscript,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard  College  Library,  IV,  184. 

41  Journal,  Jan.  23,  1766,  p.  214. 

42  Ibid.,  1765-1766,  pp.  255,  257. 


166 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  staunch  supporter  of  the  prerogative  in  the  Council,  was 
on  this  occasion  dropped  from  that  body.  To  the  Governor’s 
opening  address  the  House,  in  a  long  reply  that  bordered 
upon  extreme  disrespect,  objected  to  his  references  to  the 
late  disturbances,  declaring  that  they  were  themselves  far 
from  holding,  as  he  had  intimated,  any  “Private  Resent¬ 
ments”  or  “ill  Purposes”  under  “the  borrowed  Mask  of 
Patriotic  Zeal,”  and  regarding  it  an  injustice  to  impute  to 
the  whole  province  the  outrages  committed  against  Hutch¬ 
inson  by  a  “few  Villians  under  cover  of  the  Night.”  43  As  to 
his  attitude  concerning  the  recent  election  results  they  de¬ 
clared  : 

The  manner  in  which  you  are  pleased  to  explain  the  grounds  of 
your  Testimony  against  the  Election  of  the  present  year,  seems  to 
imply  that  it  is  your  opinion  that  the  two  Houses  have  been  so 
far  influenced  by  an  inflammatory  Spirit  in  particular  Persons,  as 
even  to  make  an  Attack  upon  the  government  in  Form!  The  two 
Houses  proceeded  in  these  Elections  with  perfect  good  Humor  and 
good  Understanding;  and  as  no  other  Business  had  been  transacted 
when  we  were  favored  with  your  speech,  it  is  astonishing  to  us  that 
you  should  think  this  a  time  to  “interrupt  the  general  Harmony”. 
.  .  .  We  are  wholly  at  loss  to  conceive  how  a  full,  free  and  fair 
Election  can  be  called,  “an  Attack  upon  the  government  in  Form,” 
“a  professed  Intention  to  deprive  it  of  its  best  and  most  able 
Servants,”  “an  ill-judged  and  ill-timed  oppugnation  of  the  King’s 
Authority,”  —  These,  may  it  please  your  Excellency,  are  high  and 
grievous  charges  against  the  two  Houses  and  such  as  we  humbly 
conceive,  no  crowned  Head  since  the  revolution  has  thought  fit  to 
bring  against  two  Houses  of  Parliament.  It  seems  to  us  to  be  little 
short,  if  anything,  of  a  direct  Impeachment  of  the  two  Houses  of 
High  Treason.  Oppugnation  of  the  King’s  Authority  is  but  a 
learned  Mode  of  expression  which  reduced  to  plain  English  is 
fighting  against  the  King’s  most  excellent  majesty.44 

43  Journal,  1766-1767,  pp.  23/.;  cf.  also  ibid.,  1765-1766,  pp.  255,  257;  1766- 
1767,  pp.  5,  8,  10,  11;  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  147. 

44  Journal,  June  3,  1766,  pp.  25/. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  167 


And  they  explained  their  procedure  as  a  blow  at  nothing 
but  the  “dangerous  union  of  legislative  and  executive  powers 
in  the  same  persons,”  —  in  reference  chiefly  to  Hutchinson. 
“Some  of  his  high  offices,”  they  later  declared,  “are  so  in¬ 
compatible  with  others  of  them,  that  in  all  probability  they 
never  will  hereafter  be,  as  they  never  were  heretofore  thus 
accumulated  by  any  man.  This  gentleman  was  for  years 
together  Lieutenant  Governor,  Councellor,  Chief  Justice  of 
the  province,  and  a  Judge  of  the  Probate.  Three  of  these 
lucrative  as  well  as  honorary  places  he  now  enjoys,  and  yet 
is  not  content.”45  Other  addresses  also  passed  back  and 
forth,  each  containing  defiant  and  sarcastic  comment.  After 
another  prolonged  and  fruitless  discussion  regarding  com¬ 
pensation  for  the  riot  victims,  that  matter  was  referred  to 
the  next  session.46  There  was  a  controversy  also  when  the 
Governor  objected  to  reduction  at  the  royal  fortresses,  Castle 
William  and  Fort  Pownal.  No  amount  of  urging  would  in¬ 
duce  the  representatives  to  make  more  than  the  one  slight 
increase  that  was  granted.47  The  session  had  lasted  scarcely 
a  month  when  it  was  prorogued,  with  Bernard  highly  dis¬ 
pleased  at  proceedings : 

I  have  just  gotten  through  a  very  troublesome  session  in  which 
the  House  of  Representatives  with  great  imprudence  as  well  as 
ingratitude  have  treated  the  King’s  authority  with  fresh  indignity. 
I  have  not  been  wanting  in  showing  a  proper  resentment  of  it.  I 
am  now  preparing  exact  accounts  of  these  transactions  for  the 
Secretary  of  State  and  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  flatter  myself  that 
the  spirit  I  have  shown  upon  the  occasion  will  meet  with  appro¬ 
bation.48 

45  Journal ,  March  16,  1767,  p.  404;  cf.  also  p.  27. 

46  Journal,  June  10,  1766,  pp.  29,  42,  66,  78,  124,  135,  137,  142. 

47  Ibid.,  1766-1767,  pp.  112,  118,  124,  126. 

48  Bernard  to  Barrington,  July  6,  1766,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 
p.  110;  cf.  also  Journal,  1766-1767;  met  May  28,  prorogued  June  28,  1766. 
Cf.  p.  146. 


168 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


As  the  summer  months  of  1766  wore  away,  his  apprehensions 
increased.  He  recognized  the  instability  of  the  ministerial 
policy  toward  America,  and  lamented  that  the  colonies  also 
noted  it  and  were  in  consequence  forming  “pretentions” 
which  otherwise  “they  would  not  have  dared.” 

The  consequence  is  that  it  is  high  time  for  every  Crown  Officer 
in  America  who  has  distinguished  himself  by  his  fidelity  to  the 
King  to  get  away  before  his  retreat  is  cut  off.  If  the  Administra¬ 
tion  of  Great  Britain  is  not  able  to  take  necessary  measures  to 
support  its  authority  over  the  Colonies  it  cannot  be  expected  that 
they  should  be  able  to  protect  the  King’s  officers  against  the 
popular  power  of  the  Colonists,  which  must  be  every  day  increasing 
at  the  expense  of  Great  Britain. 

M.  Pownall  has  long  ago  expressed  great  concern  at  the  danger 
I  am  in  at  this  place  and  with  reason,  for  many  people  here  have 
wondered  at  my  having  hitherto  escaped;  perhaps  my  firmness 
has  contributed  to  it.  But  that  won’t  do  at  all  times.  I  think  the 
trial  is  still  to  come,  especially  as  I  have  of  late  found  myself 
obliged  to  strike  some  bold  strokes  on  the  behalf  of  the  King, 
which,  though  they  have  been  generally  approved  of,  will  excite 
some  of  the  wickedest  people  who  are  hurt  by  them,  to  do  me 
some  singular  mischief.49 

What  Bernard  most  feared  was  the  trouble  that  would 
result  from  the  introduction  of  British  regulars  into  Boston. 
Rumor  had  it  that  the  troops  would  not  be  permitted  to 
enter  either  by  land  or  sea.  While  Bernard  believed  that 
such  opposition  could  hardly  be  successful  he  feared  never¬ 
theless  that  the  popular  wrath  might  turn  from  the  soldiers 
to  himself,  as  to  a  victim  upon  whom  to  be  avenged.  There¬ 
fore  his  increased  anxiety  to  return  to  England.  He  knew 
that  “improvement”  was  necessary  in  the  Massachusetts 
Government,  but  declared : 

49  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Sept.  1,  1766,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 
p.  113. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  169 


No  improvement  can  be  made  in  this  Government  but  with  the 
high  hand  of  Parliament;  So  that  it  will  be  a  vain  attempt  to  get 
my  salary  augmented  with  but  the  good  will  of  the  present  rulers 
of  the  People.  And  now  it  seems  to  me  that  there  must  be,  sooner 
or  later,  effectual  measures  taken  for  reforming  this  Government, 
which  will  be  unpleasing  to  the  People  in  their  present  Plentitude 
of  Power.  In  such  a  case  the  old  Gov’r  will  be  made  obnoxious 
whether  he  is  or  not  advising  or  privy  to  such  measures,  and  it 
may  be  advisable  on  that  account  only,  to  appoint  a  new  Gov’r. 
This  consideration  has  induced  me  to  think  of  looking  out  for 
another  establishment:  and  I  have  been  more  encouraged  in  it 
by  the  many  letters  received  here,  advising  that  it  was  intended 
to  remove  me  to  a  better  Government,  one  of  which  from  a  Gent’n 
who  has  admission  to  some  great  people,  expressly  named  Jamaica. 
There  are  now  vacant  4  Governments,  Jamaica,  Leeward  Islands, 
Barbadoes  and  Nova  Scotia.50 

Because  of  reports  then  current  in  the  press,  that  the  for¬ 
feitures  on  certain  vessels  were  largely  going  to  the  benefit  of 
the  Governor,  Bernard’s  position  became  even  more  difficult. 
The  House,  moreover,  had  attained  increased  power  through 
additional  representatives  from  new  towns.  Alone,  it  had 
appointed  an  agent,  sent  delegates  to  other  Assemblies,  au¬ 
thorized  standing  committees  to  function  outside  regular 
sessions,  and  —  significant  in  its  implications  —  had  pro¬ 
vided  for  the  first  time  a  gallery  in  which  the  people  could 
attend  sessions.  Bernard’s  patience  was  by  this  time 
exhausted  and  he  was  hoping  soon  to  return  to  England.51 

Although  in  the  next  session  the  House  was  unusually 
aggressive,  Governor  Bernard  seemed  purposely  to  avoid 
open  rupture.  He  had  called  the  session  for  the  sole  purpose 

60  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Sept.  1,  1766,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 
pp.  113,  115. 

51  Journal,  Nov.  2,  1765,  pp.  162,  172,  175,  and  passim;  also  ibid.,  Feb.  20  and 
June  28,  1766,  pp.  300,  142jf.,  and  Bernard  to  Barrington,  July  5,  1766,  Barrington- 
Bernard  Correspondence,  p.  110. 


170 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


of  giving  opportunity  to  carry  out  the  express  wishes  of 
the  King  and  Parliament  regarding  compensation  for  the 
sufferers  in  the  Stamp  Act  riots.  After  another  rejection  of 
this,  and  a  sharp  altercation  because  of  the  manner  in  which 
Bernard  phrased  the  request,  the  compensation  was  finally 
granted,  on  condition,  however,  of  “Pardon,  Indemnity  and 
Oblivion  to  the  Offenders.”  Bernard  approved,  but  the  bill 
was  later  disallowed  by  the  King.52 

This  session  really  opened  with  orders  from  the  House  to 
determine  whether  any  Acts  of  Parliament  had  been,  by 
direction  of  the  Governor  and  Council,  inserted  in  the 
province  Law  Book;  also  to  inquire  into  the  practice  adopted 
by  Governor  and  Council  of  issuing  proclamations  contain¬ 
ing  promise  of  a  reward  from  the  province  treasury  in  return 
for  enforcement  of  the  Acts.  In  regard  to  the  former,  it  was 
found  that  Acts  had  been  thus  inserted,  and  the  Council  in 
reply  to  the  Assembly’s  demand  to  know  the  reason  referred 
the  question  to  Bernard.  The  provision  of  support  for  the 
newly  arrived  British  regulars,  which  had  been  made  by 
Bernard  upon  advice  of  the  Council  alone,  also  caused 
protest.  A  committee  was  appointed  to  take  under  con¬ 
sideration  during  the  recess,  this  and  other  controverted 
matters.53  In  this  session  also  the  Assembly  determined, 
contrary  to  the  Governor’s  sentiments,  to  dismiss  the 
province  agent.  Upon  this,  as  well  as  upon  the  other  matters, 
Bernard  refrained  from  active  opposition;  and  as  soon  as  the 
object  of  the  session,  —  compensation  for  the  sufferers  in  the 
riots,  —  had  been  attained,  he  avoided  conflict  by  prorogation. 
This  conciliatory  attitude  may  perhaps  be  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  at  this  time  Bernard  felt  that  efforts  to  oppose 

62  Journal,  Oct.  30,  1766,  p.  148;  also  ibid.,  1766,  pp.  155,  159,  168,  170,  182, 
191  (speech  of  Assembly  insinuating  that  the  Governor  was  himself  accountable 
for  delay  of  compensation  owing  to  his  unconstitutional  manner  of  requesting  it), 
198,  203,  206#’.,  209  (bill  passed).  For  disallowance,  cf.  Hutchinson,  Massachu¬ 
setts,  III,  p.  160.  Compensation  was  made  before  news  of  disallowance  arrived. 

63  Journal,  1766-1767,  pp.  151,  152,  216,  218,  220. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  171 


the  Assembly  would  have  been  fruitless  because  he  was  not 
receiving  sufficient  support  from  Great  Britain.  He  was 
also  exceedingly  anxious  about  an  increase  in  salary,  and 
for  this  reason  also  may  have  avoided  antagonizing  the 
House.54 

A  similar  spirit  of  discord  characterized  the  succeeding 
session.  Whenever  possible  there  was  read  into  the  Gov¬ 
ernor’s  expressions  either  affronts  to  the  province  or  en¬ 
croachments  upon  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  lower 
chamber.  Practically  every  communication  that  then  passed 
between  Bernard  and  the  Assembly  contained  charges,  re¬ 
criminations,  defenses  and  counter-charges.55  Influences 
hostile  to  him  were  at  work  but  did  not  receive  universal 
sanction,  for  the  members  branded  as  a  “high  insult”  and 
“breach  of  their  Privileges”  an  anonymous  letter  which 
read  in  part:  “If  your  Assembly  will  suffer  themselves  to 
be  led  by  that  absur’d  ignorant  Firebrand,  he  may  bring 
them  into  a  worse  scrape  than  they  can  imagine.”  56 

The  Governor  was  also  asked  by  what  authority  he  had 
made,  on  the  advice  of  the  Council  alone,  provision  for  a 
company  in  Castle  William.  This  was  shortly  after  the  New 
York  Assembly  had  been  suspended  for  its  refusal  to  quarter 
regulars.  Perhaps  through  fear  of  another  suspension  the 
subject  was  dropped  after  a  strong  remonstrance.57  More 
serious  altercation  arose  when  Hutchinson,  no  longer  a 
member  of  the  Council,  accompanied  the  Governor  to  the 
Council  chamber,  remaining  while  both  Houses  proceeded 
with  business.  Notwithstanding  all  of  Bernard’s  insistence 
and  his  appeal  to  precedent,  the  House  persistently  objected 

64  Journal,  1766-1767,  pp.  208,  221.  Prorogued  Dec.  9,  1766;  convened  Jan. 
28,  1767;  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Jan.  20,  1767,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 

pp.  121,  122. 

65  Journal,  1766-1767,  pp.  221,  231,  257,  294,  307,  and  passim. 

“  Journal,  Feb.  27,  1767,  p.  341. 

67  Journal,  Jan.  30  and  31,  1767,  pp.  229,  234,  and  passim.  Hutchinson,  III, 
Massachusetts,  pp.  168 ff.;  cf.  also  Journal,  Jan.  4,  1767,  pp.  243,  299,  312,  315,  124. 


172 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


to  Hutchinson’s  presence.  For  months  the  dispute  went 
on  over  the  question  of  the  right  involved.58 

Trouble  also  ensued  after  the  House  had  again  resolved 
upon  dismissing  the  province  agent.  Bernard  suggested  that 
they  first  pay  the  agent’s  salary,  and  their  “surprise”  at 
this  was  “inexpressible.”  Twice  had  unanimous  votes  been 
passed  by  both  Houses  in  favor  of  the  dismissal;  and  the 
“unanimous  Advice  of  Parliament”  they  declared  had 
never  been  opposed  by  any  “wise  and  virtuous  Prince.” 
Therefore  from  Governor  Bernard  they  expected  a  “pro¬ 
portionate  degree  of  attention  to  the  principles  ...  of  the 
constitution.”  After  a  long  delay,  Bernard  approved  the 
dismissal.59 

Further  discontent  was  aroused  by  his  authorization  of 
the  publication  of  certain  proclamations  from  the  Governor 
of  Newfoundland,  which  contained  “heinous  charges  .  .  . 
of  robbery,  piracy,  murder,  and  in  effect  of  treason  and 
rebellion.” 

If  your  Excellency  and  the  Council  were  to  proclaim  the  in¬ 
habitants  of  any  neighboring  colony  robbers  and  pirates,  and  the 
Governor  and  Council  of  such  colony  were  to  re-publish  your 
proclamation  without  expressing  the  least  doubt  of  the  fact,  all 
mankind  might  justly  infer  that  the  charge  was  admitted  as  well 
founded,  and  that  the  plea  of  guilty  was  given  in,  and  such  colony 
put  only  on  the  mercy  of  the  King.60 

None  of  Bernard’s  explanations  were  acceptable.  On  March 
20,  1767,  the  General  Court  was  prorogued.61 

Of  the  new  election  to  be  held  in  May,  1767,  the  Governor 
had  no  favorable  hopes: 

58  Journal ,  Feb.  7  and  17,  1767,  pp.  260,  294/.,  349,  350,  368,  (Council  considers 
it  unconstitutional)  383,  393. 

59  Ibid.,  1766-1767,  pp.  250,  280,  308,  420. 

60  Journal,  Feb.  6,  1767,  pp.  257,  258. 

61  Ibid.,  1766-1767,  pp.  340,  361,  422. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  173 


Next  week  the  new  Assembly  meets  and  the  election  of  new 
Councellors  takes  place.  Many  people  think  that  the  change  will 
be  for  the  better.  I  doubt  it,  for  the  distemper  contracted  by  the 
Stamp  Act  seems  to  be  too  deeply  rooted  to  be  cured  without 
physick,  none  of  which  has  been  applied  as  yet  unless  what  has 
increased  the  desease  may  be  called  so.62 

Due  perhaps  to  the  influence  of  past  events  that  were 
trailing  their  shadows,  Governor  Bernard  expected,  in  spite 
of  opinions  to  the  contrary,  a  continuation  of  troubles  during 
this  session.  It  may  have  been  this  consideration  that  led 
him  to  prorogue  the  session  before  a  full  month  had  passed.63 
Proceedings,  however,  were  fairly  harmonious,  although  they 
opened  with  a  rather  ominous  comment  by  the  Assembly  on 
the  Governor’s  opening  address.  While  entertaining  hopes 
for  a  return  of  the  harmony  that  had  characterized  sessions 
prior  to  the  Stamp  Act  era,  Bernard  made  it  clear  that  he 
would  not  for  the  sake  of  that  tranquillity  sacrifice  his 
constitutional  powers.  But  the  House  could  not  “  during 
the  whole  Period  of  that  general  Calamity  and  Distress  .  .  . 
recollect  a  single  Act  .  .  .  which  could  have  the  least 
Tendency  to  interrupt  a  general  Harmony.”  And  acknowl¬ 
edging  the  executive’s  constitutional  powers,  the  members 
reminded  him  4 ‘of  such  a  thing  as  indiscreet  use  of  Legal 
Power.” 64 

It  may  here  be  mentioned  that  in  connection  with  this 
election  Bernard  had  proposed  a  bargain:  if  the  House 
would  replace  in  the  Council  Hutchinson  and  certain  other 
pro-prerogative  Councillors,  he  himself  would  approve  the 
same  number  among  those  whom  he  had  formerly  rejected. 
Ignoring  the  proposal,  the  House  re-elected  the  same  six 

62  Bernard  to  Barrington,  May  20,  1767,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence , 

pp.  126/. 

63  Ibid.  Journal ,  June  15,  1767,  p.  86. 

64  Ibid.,  June  18,  1767,  pp.  18/.,  and  May  28,  1767,  p.  8. 


174 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


who  had  been  previously  negatived,  five  of  whom  were 
again  ruled  out  by  the  Governor.65 

The  one  thing  worthy  of  mention  during  this  session  was 
the  Governor’s  objection  to  the  novelty  of  combining  in  one 
appropriation  bill  two  distinct  items,  —  somewhat  after  the 
manner  of  the  more  modern  “rider.”  In  a  bill  providing 
support  for  Castle  William  and  Fort  Pownal,  Governor 
Bernard  disapproved  the  latter  on  grounds  of  insufficiency; 
and  the  House  immediately  objected  to  the  separation  of 
parts  of  the  same  bill.66 

The  period  now  under  discussion  found  British  colonial 
policy  most  unstable.  The  illness  of  Chatham  caused  his 
own  disability,  while  his  friends  in  the  administration  feared 
to  proceed  upon  their  own  initiative.  The  general  policy  of 
the  ministry  aimed  at  appeasing  the  aroused  colonies  even 
at  the  partial  sacrifice  of  England’s  authority.  In  comment 
upon  the  opinions  of  the  ministry.  Lord  Barrington  actually 
advised  Bernard  against  too  strong  insistence  upon  the 
prerogative:  “I  plainly  perceiv’d  the  strongest  desire  that 
America  should  grow  quiet;  that  no  disputes  should  arise 
between  the  mother  country  &  its  Colonies,  or  between  Gov¬ 
ernors  and  their  Assemblies.”67 

Bernard  in  acknowledgment  said  that  he  had  been  giving 
every  possible  leeway,  but  felt  that  the  only  effective  pre¬ 
vention  of  disputes  “must  be  the  work  of  Great  Britain: 
No  Man  in  the  Colonies,  not  all  the  Governors  in  America” 
could  of  themselves  bring  about  the  desired  harmony.68  It 
was  perhaps  partly  owing  to  these  facts  that  proceedings  in 

65  Journal,  1767-1768,  May  27  and  28;  1767,  pp.  1,  7;  Bernard  to  R.  Jackson, 
June  6,  1768,  Bernard  Letters,  Spark's  Collection,  IV,  Harvard  College  Library, 
VI,  119. 

66  Journal,  June  17  and  24,  1767,  pp.  59,  78. 

67  Barrington  to  Bernard,  Oct.  6,  1767,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 
p.  129;  also  letter  written  July  8,  1767,  ibid.,  p.  127. 

68  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Jan.  26,  1768,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 
p.  131;  cf.  also  Bernard  to  J.  Pownal,  Nov.  7,  1768,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks,  IV, 
Harvard  College  Library,  VI,  164. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  175 


the  winter  session  of  1767-1768  were  for  some  weeks  without 
dispute.  Bernard  then  felt  that  victory  was  on  his  side, 
especially  when  James  Otis  seemed  to  relinquish  activities 
and  several  of  his  colleagues  made  peace;  but  he  knew  also 
that  “wounds  may  be  skinned  over  without  healing;  and 
a  Calm  may  be  more  dangerous  than  a  Storm.”  69  It  was 
during  this  lull  between  storms  that  he  wrote  urging  the 
necessity  of  giving  to  America  a  voice  in  Parliament  as  the 
only  solution  of  the  taxation  problem.  But  he  was  informed 
that  “no  Influence  could  make  ten  Members  of  either  House 
of  Parliament  agree  to  such  a  Remedy.”  Bernard’s  reas¬ 
surance  during  this  silence  was  strengthened  by  the  knowl¬ 
edge  that  Parliament  had  decided  to  make  Governors  inde¬ 
pendent  of  Assemblies  in  regard  to  salary.70 

During  the  first  month  of  this  session  beginning  Dec.  30, 

1767,  the  “factious  Party”  had  been  able  to  do  no  more 
than  send  letters  to  the  province  agent  and  to  the  Secretary 
of  State,  together  with  an  address  to  the  King  regarding  the 
old  grievance  of  Parliamentary  taxation.71  One  attempt  to 
issue  on  the  subject  a  circular  letter  to  all  the  colonies  failed. 
But  the  leaders  managed  to  secure  a  vote  to  erase  these  pro¬ 
ceedings,  and  later  to  send  the  letter.72  With  this  trans¬ 
action  ended  the  calm  before  the  storm. 

In  the  fall  of  1767,  Shelburne  had  written  in  confirmation 
of  Bernard’s  negative  on  the  Councillors  and  in  censure  of 
the  Assembly,  with  personal  mention  of  several  members. 
Expecting  good  results  from  the  communication  of  this 
letter  to  the  House,  yet  wishing  to  avoid  publication,  Bernard 

69  Journal,  Dec.  30,  1767,  p.  87;  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Jan.  26,  1768,  Bar¬ 
rington- Bernard  Correspondence,  p.  132. 

70  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Jan.  28,  March  12,  and  Feb.  7,  1768,  Barrington- 
Bernard  Correspondence,  pp.  133/,  140,  143. 

71  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Feb.  7  and  20,  1768,  ibid.,  p.  146;  Journal,  1767- 

1768,  pp.  107/.,  187,  and  Appendix,  ibid.,  pp.  Iff.  (address  to  King),  23/.  (letter 
to  Shelburne),  2 5ff.  (letter  to  agent). 

72  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Feb.  20,  1768,  ibid.,  p.  146;  Journal,  1767-1768, 
pp.  148,  157,  161,  164,  and  Appendix,  p.  20/.,  where  letter  is  printed. 


176 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


caused  it  to  be  read  by  the  secretary.  When  a  copy  was 
requested  he  gave  it  on  condition  that  no  further  copy  be 
taken.73  The  Governor  was  then  charged  with  misrepre¬ 
sentation  of  the  members’  characters,  and  of  having  been, 
by  reason  of  disclosures  made  in  his  letters,  the  occasion  of 
bringing  upon  the  colony  the  displeasure  of  the  ministry. 
To  aid  in  the  Assembly’s  vindication,  a  copy  of  Bernard’s 
other  letters  on  the  subject  was  requested;  and,  upon  refusal, 
the  request  was  directed,  together  with  an  explanation  of 
the  Assembly’s  position,  to  Shelburne  himself ;  and,  contrary 
to  promises,  the  House  the  while  disclaiming  responsibility, 
the  Shelburne  letter  was  published.74  Later  on  when  other 
letters  written  by  Governor  Bernard  and  General  Gage, 
which  the  Massachusetts  agent  in  England  had  secured,  were 
about  to  be  printed  and  scattered  broadcast  in  the  colony, 
Bernard  thus  expressed  his  views:  “This  puts  an  End  to  all 
my  Hopes  of  doing  any  Good  here  ...  it  is  impossible  for 
a  Governor  who  has  been  engaged  in  such  contests  as  I  have 
been  .  .  .  to  think  of  staying  in  the  Province.”  75  Regarding 
a  vilification  of  the  Governor  that  soon  after  appeared  in 
the  Gazette ,  the  General  Court  refused  to  take  any  action. 
Bernard  at  this  time  wrote  to  Shelburne  as  follows:  “Two 
of  the  Chief  Leaders  of  the  Faction  in  the  House  (Otis  & 
Adams)  are  the  principal  Managers  of  the  Boston  Gazette.”76 
With  a  strong  address  of  censure  for  the  Assembly  and  of 
commendation  for  the  Council  Bernard  closed  the  session. 
He  felt  that  the  Assembly  had  taken  opportunity,  while 

73  Shelburne’s  letter  is  printed  in  Appendix  to  Journal,  1767-1768,  pp.  34#'.; 
cf.  also  ibid.,  pp.  176/.;  ibid.,  Feb.  3,  13,  and  16,  1768,  pp.  147,  163,  171. 

74  Journal,  Feb.  18,  22,  and  24,  1768,  pp.  176/.,  187,  190,  192;  cf.  letter,  ibid., 
Appendix,  pp.  25/. 

75  Bernard  to  Barrington,  April  12,  1769,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 
p.  200.  These  letters  were  replied  to  in  an  Appeal  to  the  World,  which  can  be  seen 
in  Vol.  108  of  Miscellaneous  Pamphlets. 

76  Bernard  to  Shelburne,  March  5,  1768,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard 
College  Library,  VI,  272;  cf.  also  Journal,  March  2,  1768. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  177 


parts  of  the  province  were  aroused  to  all  but  violent  demon¬ 
strations,  to  “pick”  this  quarrel  with  the  Governor.77 

By  this  time  the  Farmers'  Letters  had  become  the  American 
political  creed.  Affairs  were  coming  to  a  serious  pass,  and 
the  Governor  was  prepared  to  see  the  “crisis”  of  which  he 
was  constantly  warning  the  ministry.78  In  this  year  there 
was  a  “great  Celebration  of  the  Repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act, 
by  drums  and  guns  at  Break  of  Day,  and  the  whole  Town 
adorned  with  Ships  Colours  and  to  add  to  the  Celebration, 
the  Feast  of  St.  Patrick  was  post-poned  to  this  Day.”79 

Dangerous  as  were  these  quasi  insurrections  to  some  of 
the  Crown  officials,  neither  the  Governor  nor  the  Council 
dared  take  measures  to  secure  British  troops.  Bernard  was 
still  anxious  to  receive  discretionary  leave  to  quit  the  colony ; 
feeling  “that  so  serious  was  the  situation  becoming  that 
soon  he  was  not  like  to  have  any  choice  in  it.”80 

Writing  May  9,  1768,  to  Lord  Barrington,  Governor 
Bernard  informed  his  Lordship  that: 

In  the  winter  of  65-6,  I  was  several  times  drove  to  the  very 
brink  of  deserting  my  post,  and  in  the  Spring  following,  the  Lieu¬ 
tenant-Governor  told  me  that  nothing  surprised  him  more  than 
to  see  me  in  this  town  at  that  time.  And  if  we  are  to  believe  the 
Heads  of  the  Faction  here,  if  concessions  from  Great  Britain  are 
not  soon  made,  the  next  winter  will  be  as  dangerous.81 

The  Governor’s  fears  were  increased  by  secret  informa¬ 
tion  of  a  concerted  uprising  among  the  colonies  against  the 

77  Journal,  March  4,  1768;  prorogued  to  April  13,  1768.  Cf.  ibid.,  Bernard  to 
Barrington,  March  4,  1768,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence,  p.  149. 

78  Bernard  to  T.  Pownal,  April  20,  1768;  Bernard  to  Barrington,  June  18,  1768, 
Bernard  Letters,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard  College  Library,  VI,  107,  123;  also  to  T. 
Pownal,  July  11,  1768,  ibid.,  p.  130. 

79  Bernard  to  Shelburne,  March  19,  1768,  ibid.,  p.  280. 

80  Bernard  to  Barrington,  April  20,  1768,  ibid.,  p.  153.  For  data  preceding, 
cf.  Bernard  to  Barrington,  March  4,  Feb.  7,  April  20,  and  May  9,  1768,  ibid., 
pp.  148,  144,  153,  156. 

81  Bernard  to  Barrington,  May  9,  1768,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 
pp.  156/. 


178 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Customs  House  officials,  and  by  rumors  of  violence,  at  least 
in  Massachusetts,  to  the  Governor  himself.  It  was  hardly 
a  month  after  he  had  thus  written  when  the  Customs  officers 
in  Boston  were  driven,  in  danger  of  their  lives,  out  of  the 
town.82 

Meanwhile,  in  the  newly  opened  session  of  the  General 
Court,  trouble  had  begun;  and  before  its  close  the  commis¬ 
sioners  of  the  customs  had  fled  to  the  British  warships  in 
Boston  harbor.  In  the  recent  elections  Bernard  again  failed 
to  strengthen  the  prerogative  party  in  the  Council,  losing 
by  a  very  narrow  margin  the  Lieutenant-Governor,  Thomas 
Hutchinson.  Again  he  negatived  the  election  to  the  Council 
of  James  Otis  and  of  five  other  leaders  of  the  “Faction.” 
The  House  refused  to  elect  substitutes.83 

Difficulties  commenced  when  Bernard,  explaining  that  he 
was  “merely  ministerial  in  this  Business,”  announced  the 
King’s  instructions  requiring  the  members  to  rescind  the 
former  Assembly’s  resolution  regarding  a  circular  letter. 
This  created  a  deep  impression,  and  he  was  asked  for  a  copy 
of  the  instructions,  together  with  Lord  Hillsborough’s  letter 
and  all  his  own  correspondence  on  the  subject.  Giving  the 
Secretary’s  letter,  which  he  said  contained  all  the  instructions 
that  he  had,  Bernard  refused  to  make  public  his  own  corre¬ 
spondence.84  After  vainly  requesting  a  recess,  the  House 
refused  to  obey  the  King’s  command,  denying  that  in  securing 
the  vote  for  the  circular  letter,  illegal  measures  had  been 
resorted  to,  and  declaring  “incomprehensible”  this  require¬ 
ment  to  rescind  on  peril  of  dissolution  a  resolution  of  a 
former  House,  which  was  no  longer  “executory,”  but 
“executed,”  and  therefore  with  “no  existence,  but  as  a  mere 
historical  fact.”  With  strenuous  objection  to  the  dissolution, 

82  Bernard  to  Barrington,  May  9  and  June  18,  1768,  Barrington- Bernard  Corre¬ 
spondence ,  pp.  159,  160. 

83  Journal,  June  21,  1768,  and  data  on  pp.  4,  7,  16,  68;  Bernard  to  T.  Pownal, 
May  30,  1768,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard  College  Library,  VI,  115. 

84  Journal,  June  21,  1768,  pp.  72,  75. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  179 


as  well  as  with  a  purpose  to  petition  the  King  for  removal  of 
the  Governor,  they  declared: 

We  take  this  opportunity  faithfully  and  firmly  to  represent  to 
your  Excellency  that  new  Revenue  Acts  and  Measures  are  not 
only  disagreeable  to,  but  in  every  view  are  deemed  an  insupportable 
burden  and  grievance,  with  a  very  few  exceptions,  by  all  the  free¬ 
holders  and  other  inhabitants  of  the  jurisdiction;  and  we  beg 
leave,  once  and  for  all,  to  assure  your  Excellency,  that  those  of 
this  opinion  are  of  no  “party  or  expiring  faction.”  They  have  at 
all  times  been  ready  to  devote  their  lives  and  fortunes  to  his 
Majesty’s  service.  Of  loyalty,  this  majority  could  as  reasonably 
boast  as  any  who  may  happen  to  enjoy  your  Excellency’s  smiles. 
Their  reputation,  rank  and  fortune  are  at  least  equal  to  those  who 
may  have  been  sometimes  considered  as  the  only  friends  to  good 
government,  while  some  of  the  best  blood  of  the  Colony,  even  in 
the  two  Houses  of  Assembly  lawfully  convened,  and  duly  acting, 
have  been  openly  charged  with  the  unpardonable  crime  of  “Op- 
pugnation  against  the  Royal  Authority.”  We  have  now  only  to 
inform  you,  your  Excellency,  that  this  House  has  voted  not  to 
rescind,  as  required,  the  resolution  of  the  last  House;  and  that  on 
a  division  on  the  question,  there  were  92  Nays  and  17  Yeas.  In 
all  this  we  have  been  actuated  by  a  conscientious,  and  finally,  a 
clear  and  determined  sense  of  duty  to  God,  to  our  King,  our 
Country  and  to  our  latest  posterity;  and  we  must  ardently  wish 
and  humbly  pray  that  in  your  future  conduct,  your  Excellency  may 
be  influenced  by  the  same  principles.85 

In  the  petition  for  Governor  Bernard’s  removal  were  in¬ 
cluded  the  following  articles  of  complaint: 

He  early  attached  himself  to  a  part,  whose  principles  and  views, 
we  apprehend,  have  ever  been  repugnant  to  your  Majesty’s  real 
service. 

He  has  both  in  his  speeches  and  other  public  acts,  treated  the 
Representative  Body  with  contempt. 

He  has  in  an  unwarrantable  manner,  taken  upon  himself,  the 


85  Journal,  1768,  p.  94. 


180 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


exercise  of  your  Majesty’s  Royal  Prerogative,  in  granting  a  charter 
for  a  college,  without  even  the  advice  of  your  Majesty's  Council. 

He  has  openly  attempted  to  make  himself  sole  and  absolute 
Judge  of  the  Qualification  of  Members,  returned  to  serve  in  the 
House  of  Representative. 

We  have  also,  reason  to  apprehend  that  he  has  endeavored  to 
persuade  your  Majesty’s  Ministers  to  believe  that  an  Intention 
was  formed,  and  a  plan  fettled  in  this  and  the  rest  of  your  Colonies 
treasonably  to  withdraw  themselves  from  all  connection  with 
and  dependence  upon  Great  Britain,  and  from  their  natural 
allegiance  to  your  Majesty’s  sacred  person  and  government. 

He  has  in  his  public  speeches  charged  both  Houses  of  Assembly 
with  oppugnation  against  the  Royal  authority,  and  with  leaving 
gentlemen  out  of  the  Council  only  for  their  Fidelity  to  the  Crown. 

He  has  indiscretely,  not  to  say  wantonly,  exercised  the  Pre¬ 
rogative  of  the  Crown,  in  the  repeated  negatives  of  Councellors  of 
an  unblemished  reputation  and  duly  elected  by  a  great  majority 
of  both  Houses  of  Assembly. 

He  has  declared  that  certain  seats  of  the  Council  Board,  shall 
be  kept  vacant  ’till  certain  gentlemen,  his  favorites,  shall  be  re¬ 
elected. 

He  has  unconstitutionally  interferred  with  and  unduly  influenced 
elections,  particularly  in  the  choice  of  an  Agent  for  the  Province. 

He  has  very  abruptly  displaced  divers  gentlemen  of  worth,  for 
no  apparent  reason  but  their  voting  in  the  Assembly  against  his 
measures. 

He  has  practised  the  sending  over  depositions  to  the  Ministry 
against  gentlemen  of  character  here,  without  giving  the  accused 
the  least  notice  of  his  purposes  and  proceedings. 

He  has  created  divers,  new  and  unconstitutional  offices. 

He  has  drawn  divers  warrants  on  the  Treasury  for  the  payment 
of  monies  against  the  express  appropriations  of  the  Assembly. 

He  has  at  the  Session,  presumed  to  threaten  the  General  As¬ 
sembly,  upon  the  non-compliance  of  the  House  of  Representative 
with  a  certain  requisition,  not  only  to  dissolve  them,  but  to  delay 
to  call  a  new  assembly  which  is  beyond  your  Majesty’s  orders. 

By  the  means  aforesaid,  and  many  others  that  might  be  enumer¬ 
ated,  he  has  not  only  rendered  his  administration  disagreeable  to 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  181 


the  whole  Body  of  the  People  but  entirely  alienated  their  affections 
from  him  and  thereby  wholly  destroyed  that  confidence  in  a  Gov¬ 
ernor,  which  your  Majesty’s  Service  indispensably  required. 

Wherefore,  we  most  humbly  intreat  your  Majesty  that  his  Ex¬ 
cellency  Francis  Bernard,  Esq.,  may  be  removed  from  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  this  Province.  And  that  your  Majesty  would  be  graciously 
pleased  to  place  one  in  his  stead,  worthy  to  represent  the  greatest 
and  best  Monarch  on  earth.86 

On  the  same  day  on  which  these  proceedings  occurred,  the 
General  Court  was  prorogued,  and  a  day  later  dissolved  by 
proclamation.87  Through  this  indirect  method  Bernard 
hoped  to  avoid  much  of  the  trouble  that  he  had  anticipated 
upon  declaration  of  dissolution.  His  troubles,  however, 
were  by  no  means  ended.  So  great  had  been  the  impression 
caused  by  the  disturbances  in  the  colony,  that  regiments 
from  Ireland  and  from  Halifax  were  held  in  readiness  to 
proceed  thither.  Meantime,  against  any  who  should  be 
instrumental  in  bringing  troops,  death  had  been  threatened. 
Bernard  therefore  feared,  in  spite  of  the  evident  need  of 
military  support  of  his  authority,  to  requisition  aid  from 
General  Gage,  who  had  orders  to  keep  the  troops  at  Halifax 
in  readiness  to  respond  to  the  Governor’s  request.  His  own 
opinion  was  that  the  British  regulars  should  long  ago  by 
Act  of  Parliament  have  been  quartered  in  Boston.  Dis¬ 
turbances  could  then  quickly  and  easily  have  been  quelled, 
and  the  odium  of  introducing  the  military  would  not  have 
been  left  to  him.  Since  the  late  session,  too,  the  Council 
had  gone  to  the  side  of  the  popular  party,  and  therefore 
unanimously  refused  to  advise  the  calling  of  troops.  Bernard 
was  in  a  dilemma.  To  call  them  in  on  his  own  initiative  alone 
would  too  greatly  offend  the  popular  party;  not  to  call  them 

86  Journal,  1768,  p.  95. 

87  Ibid.,  June  30,  1768.  Bernard  to  Barrington,  June  29,  1768,  Barrington - 
Bernard  Correspondence,  p.  163.  For  proclamation  cf.  Massachusetts  Broadsides, 
Massachusetts  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  75,  1922,  p.  195. 


182 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


in  would  bring  the  censure  of  the  home  government.  He 
cited,  therefore,  as  the  excuse  for  his  inaction  the  refusal  of 
the  Council  so  to  advise,  and,  shirking  altogether  the  re¬ 
sponsibilities  of  his  office,  again  requested  removal  to  another 
post.88  He  later  suggested  that  the  Council  be  appointed  by 
the  King.89  When  news  came  of  the  appointment  of  Lord 
Boutetort  to  the  place  that  he  himself  expected  in  Virginia, 
Bernard  thus  lamented:  “If  Punishments  and  Rewards  are 
the  two  Hinges  of  Government,  as  Politicians  say,  this  Gov¬ 
ernment  is  off  of  its  Hinges,  for  it  can  neither  punish  nor 
reward.”90  And  when  at  last  troops  were  safely  landed  in 
Boston  and  the  persons  of  the  Crown  officials  were  made 
secure,  Bernard  was  not  yet  free  from  anxiety,  as  may  be 
perceived  in  his  correspondence: 

Security  alone  will  not  restore  the  authority  of  Government; 
especially  as  the  Council  has  now  gone  over  to  the  people,  thinking, 
as  I  suppose,  the  cause  of  the  Crown  to  be  desperate.  And,  indeed, 
the  long  delay  of  parliamentary  resentment  and  of  military  pro¬ 
tection  together  with  the  non-execution  of  the  Salary  Act  has 
caused  a  general  despondency.  And  this  will  be  complete  if  it  is 
confirmed  as  I  have  just  now  heard  that  the  Charter  of  this  Gov¬ 
ernment  is  still  considered  as  sacred.  For  most  assuredly  if  the 
charter  is  not  so  far  altered  as  to  put  the  appointment  of  the 
Council  in  the  King,  this  Government  will  never  recover  itself. 
When  order  is  restored  it  will  be  at  best  but  a  Republic  of  which 
the  Governor  will  be  no  more  than  President.91 

In  the  mean  time  Governor  Bernard  had  carried  out  his 
determination  not  to  summon  the  General  Court  except  by 
express  order  of  the  King,  and  when  constrained  to  do  so  by 

88  Journal ,  June  30,  1768.  Bernard  to  Barrington,  July  30,  July  11,  Aug.  17, 
and  July  20,  1768,  Bernard- Barrington  Correspondence,  pp.  164/f.,  167,  169jf. 

89  Bernard  to  Hillsborough,  Feb.  4,  1769,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard 
College  Library,  VI,  132. 

90  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Oct.  20,  1768,  ibid.,  VI,  156. 

91  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence,  p.  179. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  183 


the  requirement  of  annual  election  of  Councillors.  As  a  re¬ 
sult  informal  assemblies  were  soon  meeting  in  the  towns. 
Bernard  was  requested  to  issue  writs  for  an  election,  in  order 
that  the  grievances  of  the  people  might  be  adjusted,  —  a 
proceeding  practically  verifying  the  Governor’s  prediction 
as  to  the  evolution  of  the  colony  into  a  republic,  and  tanta¬ 
mount  to  establishing  representative  government  independ¬ 
ent  of  both  Crown  and  executive.  This  request,  issued  by 
the  convention  of  ninety  delegates  at  Boston,  was  refused, 
Bernard  declaring  the  meeting  illegal  and  ordering  dispersion. 
Upon  the  arrival  of  the  troops  this  “  Assembly  ”  disappeared, 
but  the  discontent  and  the  disaffection  toward  England 
remained.  The  presence  of  the  military  acted  as  a  goad 
rather  than  as  a  quietus.  Quartering  was  opposed  by  every¬ 
one.  In  this  matter  even  the  justices  found  means  of  evading 
parliamentary  law,  and  the  Gazette  and  other  periodicals, 
especially  one  published  in  New  York  and  London,  added 
fuel  to  the  flame.  The  latter  paper  was  under  the  super¬ 
vision  of  Adams  and  of  his  assistants,  one  or  more  of  whom 
must  have  been  members  of  the  Council,  for  information 
of  much  of  that  body’s  deliberations  was  leaking  out.92 
“But  if  the  Devil  himself  was  of  the  Party,”  wrote  Bernard, 
“as  he  virtually  is,  there  could  not  have  been  got  together 
a  greater  Collection  of  impudent  and  Seditious  Lies,  Per¬ 
versions  of  Truth  &  Misrepresentations  than  are  to  be  found 
in  this  Publication.”  93 

Before  the  time  for  the  annual  election  of  1769,  the  reaction 
against  the  taxation  and  navigation  laws  had  resulted  in  a 
practical  disappearance  of  respect  for  the  Parliament  in 
England  and  the  Governor  in  the  colony,  and  even  of  the 
wonted  professions  of  reverence  for  the  King  himself. 

92  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Feb.  20,  1769,  and  March  21,  1769,  Barrington- 
Bernard  Correspondence,  pp.  169,  196.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  204,  208jf. 

93  Bernard  to  Hillsborough,  Feb.  21,  1769,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks  IV,  Harvard 
College  Library,  VII,  141. 


184 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


It  signifies  little  who  is  Governor.  Whoever  he  is,  he  must 
either  live  in  perpetual  Contention  in  vainly  endeavoring  to  sup¬ 
port  the  royal  Rights,  or  he  must  purchase  Peace  by  a  prudential 
Sacrifice  of  them.  If  anyone  by  a  Comparison  of  former  Times 
should  doubt  of  this  being  a  true  State  of  the  present,  let  him  con¬ 
sider  that  until  the  4  or  5  years  last  past,  the  Power  of  Parliament 
was  thought  omnipotent,  the  Authority  of  the  King  was  revered, 
the  Governor  and  the  Council  his  Assistants  were  respected,  and 
the  People,  in  whom,  by  the  Constitution,  the  chief  Weight  of 
Power  was  lodged,  were  kept  in  awe  by  the  Consideration  that  the 
Abuse  of  their  Charter  priviledges  might  occasion  the  Forfeiture 
of  them.  But  for  these  4  years  past  so  uniform  a  System  of  bring¬ 
ing  all  Powers  into  the  hands  of  the  Assembly  has  been  prosecuted 
without  interruption  and  with  such  Success,  that  all  that  Fear, 
Reverence,  Respect  &  Awe  which  before  formed  a  tolerable 
Ballance  against  the  real  Power  of  the  People,  are  annihilated,  and 
the  artificial  Weights  being  removed,  the  royal  Scale  mounts  up 
and  kicks  the  Beam.94 

So  completely  over  to  the  popular  side  had  the  Council  by 
this  time  turned  that  Governor  Bernard  wrote  that  if  the 
King  did  not  take  over  the  appointment  of  the  members,  it 
would  be  useless  for  His  Majesty  to  keep  that  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernor;  for  “it  would  be  better  that  Mass  Bay  should  be  a 
complete  Republic  like  Connecticut,  than  to  remain  with 
so  few  ingredients  of  royalty  in  it  as  shall  be  insufficient  to 
maintain  the  real  royal  Character.”  95  There  had  actually 
been  made  in  Boston  conventions,  proposals  to  depose  the 
Governor  and  Lieutenant-Governor,  and  to  assume  charge 
of  the  government.96 

During  this  period,  also,  copies  of  several  of  Bernard’s 

94  Bernard  to  Barrington,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks  IV,  Harvard  College  Library, 
VII,  264/. 

95  Bernard  to  Barrington,  March  18,  1769,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence, 
p.  169. 

96  Bernard  to  Hillsborough,  Jan.  24,  1769,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks  IV,  Harvard 
College  Library,  VI,  123. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  185 


letters  to  the  ministry  were  published  in  the  colony,  with 
intention  of  inflaming  the  voters  and  thus  affecting  the  May 
election  of  1769.  The  incident  apparently  meant  much  to 
the  Governor,  causing  him  to  reiterate  what  he  had  formerly 
declared : 

This  puts  an  end  to  all  my  hopes  of  doing  any  good  here  and 
necessarily  turns  all  my  future  views  out  of  this  Province.  For 
it  is  impossible  for  a  Governor  who  has  been  engaged  in  such  con¬ 
tests  as  I  have  been  and  has  as  well  by  special  orders  as  by  his 
own  sense  of  his  duty  given  free  and  full  information  of  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  the  factious  party,  to  think  of  staying  in  the  Province 
after  his  most  confidential  letters  are  put  in  the  hands  of  the 
Faction  and  printed  and  dispersed  among  the  people.97 

On  the  eve  of  the  first  meeting  of  the  new  General  Court, 
Bernard  and  the  prerogative  party  were  more  dispirited  than 
ever,  while  the  elation  of  the  “Sons  of  Liberty”  had  corre¬ 
spondingly  increased.  The  Governor  was  convinced  that 
unless  Parliament  took  speedy  action,  “this  Government 
will  soon  become  an  anarchical  Democracy;  a  strange  Com¬ 
pound  of  Policy!  ”  98  Asa  result  of  the  election  the  Assembly 
was  composed  chiefly  of  members  of  the  “faction,”  who,  while 
many  of  the  prerogative  men  had  been  turned  out,  declined 
to  serve,  or  remained  away  from  the  Court  House  during 
the  session.  Almost  on  the  instant  of  meeting,  and  before 
speaker,  clerk,  or  Councillors  had  been  chosen,  there  was  a  re¬ 
monstrance  against  the  presence  in  Boston  Harbor  of  armed 
ships,  as  well  as  of  troops  in  the  city,  with  a  military  guard 
and  cannon  pointed  at  the  very  door  of  the  Court  House, 
where  the  session  was  in  progress.  Claiming  that  such  an 
“Armament  by  Sea  and  Land  was  destructive  of  their 
constitutional  right  of  parliamentary  freedom  of  debate  in 

97  Bernard  to  Barrington,  April  12,  1769,  Barrington-Bernard  Correspondence,  pp. 
199/. 

98  Bernard  to  Barrington,  May  30,  1769,  ibid.,  p.  203. 


186 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  Assembly,”  they  requested  that  Bernard  issue  orders 
for  immediate  removal  of  both  land  and  water  forces.  Then, 
under  formal  resolve  of  protest  against  this  grievance,  and 
for  no  other  reason  than  to  conform  with  the  charter  require¬ 
ment  of  annual  election  of  Councillors,  the  members  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  the  business  of  the  session.  The  preceding  speaker 
had  been  re-elected,  and  Samuel  Adams  again  made  clerk. 
The  choice  of  Councillors  was  still  pending  when  Bernard 
announced  that  his  authority  did  not  extend  to  the  King’s 
ships  and  troops.  Perhaps  consequent  upon  this,  perhaps 
by  mere  coincidence,  the  four  remaining  loyal  Councillors 
failed  of  re-election;  and  thus  in  that  body  also  men  of  anti¬ 
prerogative  views  predominated  —  so  much  so  that  the  al¬ 
most  unprecedented  number  of  eleven  were  immediately 
negatived,  among  whom  were  Otis  and  Hancock.  “All 
things  are  going  to  Confusion,”  wrote  the  Governor,  “&  it 
will  grow  worse  &  worse  untill  the  Parliament  interpose  to 
Purpose.” 99 

Governor  Bernard’s  opening  address  recommended  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  regular  business  of  the  province,  again  reminding 
the  General  Court  that  much  as  he  desired  harmony,  he 
would  not  for  this  end  sacrifice  the  principle  of  loyalty  to  his 
sovereign.  As  long  as  the  troops  stood  guard  over  the  Court 
House,  however,  the  members  refused  to  proceed  to  business. 
Finally,  after  two  weeks  of  what  Bernard  described  as  wasted 
time  and  expense,  and  because  he  possessed  no  authority  to 
remove  the  troops  from  the  General  Court,  he  decided  to 
remove  the  Court  from  the  troops,  ordering  an  adjournment 
to  Harvard  College  in  Cambridge.100  On  the  same  night, 
according  to  the  Assembly  Journal ,  the  cannon  was  removed 
from  the  Court  House  in  Boston.  In  a  letter  to  Hillsborough, 
however,  Bernard  wrote  that  the  cannon  remained  until 

99  Bernard  to  Barrington,  May  30  and  July  8,  1769,  ibid.,  pp.  203,  204,  207. 
Journal,  May  31,  1769,  pp.  7,  8. 

100  Journal,  June  1  and  15,  1769,  pp.  11,  206. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  187 


three  days  after  the  adjournment,  and  was  then  removed  by 
orders  from  General  Gage.  The  Governor  felt  that  in  this 
incident  the  House  was  simply  looking  for  grievances,  in 
order  to  give  color  to  its  pretensions.  In  the  matter  of  the 
troops  and  ships,  he  said  that  the  request  for  removal  pur¬ 
posely  omitted  any  mention  of  the  main  guard,  which  must 
have  been  stationed  near  the  Court  House.  “They  knew 
that  if  they  had  applied  for  the  removing  the  Main  Guard  it 
would  have  been  done,  &  therefore  they  would  not  ask  for 
it  &  declared  that  they  would  not  .  .  .  These  are  trifling 
matters;  but  serve  to  show  the  Falsehood  &  Prevarication 
of  these  People.5’ 101 

Until  the  troops  were  actually  removed  from  the  province, 
it  was  rumored  that  the  members  would  refuse  to  proceed  to 
business.  In  fact,  had  a  session  at  that  time  not  been  so 
anxiously  desired,  they  would  have  objected  to  the  removal 
more  strongly  than  they  did;  and  had  not  certain  important 
tax  questions  remained  yet  unsettled,  the  Governor  would 
have  ordered  a  prorogation.  On  the  alleged  waste  of  time 
and  money,  the  Assembly  indignantly  declared:  “No  Time 
can  be  better  employed  than  in  the  Preservation  of  the 
Rights  derived  from  the  British  Constitution,  ...  No 
Treasure  can  be  better  expended  than  in  securing  that  true 
old  English  Liberty,  which  gives  a  Relish  to  every  other 
Enjoyment.55  Soon  afterward  there  was  read  a  unanimously 
accepted  resolve  against  the  quartering  of  troops,  which  was 
declared  to  be  an  infringement  of  liberty,  to  which  only 
through  inevitable  necessity  were  they  yielding.102 

The  session  had  continued  for  three  weeks,  producing 
nothing  but  disputation,  when  Governor  Bernard,  in  order 

101  Bernard  to  Hillsborough,  July  1,  1769,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks  IV,  Harvard 
College  Library,  VII,  178. 

102  Journal,  June  21,  1769;  cf.  also  June  19,  1769.  Bernard  to  Barrington, 
May  30,  1769,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence,  p.  205.  Hutchinson,  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  III,  237-240. 


188 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


to  leave  no  foundation  for  excuse,  itemized  the  neglected 
details  of  public  business,  mentioning  support  of  the  govern¬ 
ment,  treasury  supply,  the  public  debt,  taxation  measures, 
establishment  for  the  forts  and  garrisons,  and  two  other 
items.103  Meantime,  the  House  had  been  considering  certain 
letters  written  to  Hillsborough  by  the  Governor  and  General 
Gage,  and  on  the  day  following  this  address  was  ready  to 
accept  a  report  thereon.  It  was  declared  that  in  these  letters 
the  King’s  subjects  in  the  colony,  and  in  particular  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Council,  had  been  traduced,  and  placed  in  a  light 
most  odious  and  unjustly  represented  to  His  Majesty.104 

Then  occurred  an  incident  that  well  shows  the  disregard 
in  which  Bernard  was  held  by  the  House.  The  Governor  of 
New  Hampshire,  John  Wentworth,  who  had  come  on  busi¬ 
ness  to  the  Admiralty  Court,  was  waited  upon  by  a  House 
committee  headed  by  James  Otis,  and  was  informed  that 
the  House  would  be  glad  of  an  opportunity  of  manifesting 
to  him  its  respect;  and  the  members  severally  paid  their 
compliments  to  him.  The  comment  of  contemporary  news¬ 
papers  interprets  this  proceeding.  One  journal,  after  styling 
the  New  Hampshire  Governor  a  “worthy  representative  of 
his  majesty,  and  a  favourite  of  the  people,”  continued: 

However  the  people  of  this  province  may  have  been  represented 
as  inimical  to  any  who  may  chance  to  wear  his  majesty’s  commis¬ 
sion,  the  world,  in  this  instance,  may  be  clearly  convinced,  that 
the  spirit  of  disgust  arises  not  from  the  commission  with  which  our 

103  Journal,  June  21,  1769.  Session  had  now  been  in  progress  since  May  31. 

104  Journal,  June  22,  1769.  In  this  connection  Bernard  wrote  the  follow¬ 
ing:  “We  have  just  now  learned  that  anyone  who  will  pay  for  them  may  have 
copies  of  the  Letters  and  Papers  laid  before  the  Parliament.  There  are  just  now 
arrived  six  of  my  letters  and  one  of  General  Gage’s  attested  by  the  Clerk  of  the 
Papers.  Mr.  Bollan  who  has  sent  them  hither  promises  the  rest  as  soon  as  they  can 
be  copied.  The  Councellors  to  whom  they  were  sent  immediately  met  and  ordered 
these  papers  to  be  printed;  but  the  publication  of  them  is  deferred  until  observa¬ 
tions  can  be  finished  to  accompany  them,  which  a  gentleman  has  been  hired  to 
work  upon  and  will  have  completed  in  a  day  or  two.”  Bernard  to  Barrington, 
Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence,  p.  200. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  189 


most  gracious  sovereign  thinks  it  fit  to  honour  any  of  his  subjects, 
but  from  the  dislike  to  those  whose  deportment  is  unworthy  the 
royal  favour.105 

It  was  not  many  days  later  when  the  House  unanimously 
resolved  upon  a  petition  for  removal  of  the  Governor  from 
office.  The  people  had  long  been  desirous  of  his  departure. 
Consequently  when  in  April,  1769,  his  orders  to  return  to 
England  became  generally  known,  they  greatly  rejoiced, 
believing  the  recall  a  result  of  their  remonstrances,  and 
therefore  a  victory  for  their  cause.  But  the  petition  was 
scarcely  determined  upon  when  Bernard  delivered  to  the 
Assembly  a  severe  blow,  in  the  announcement  of  instructions 
from  England  to  the  effect  that  he  was,  even  though  absent, 
to  continue  in  office  and  to  receive  one  half  the  usual  salary. 
He  made  this  the  occasion  also  of  urging  provision  for  the 
salary  already  due  for  the  current  year.  The  House,  wholly 
unprepared  for  this  intelligence,  unanimously  refused  any 
salary  at  all,  later  declaring  that  the  King’s  instructions, 
while  constituting  law  for  the  Governor,  in  no  way  referred 
to  the  Assembly.106 

In  connection  with  the  above  mentioned  address  that 
itemized  the  ordinary  needs  of  government,  it  may  be  noted 
here  that  Bernard  had  not  been  in  the  habit  of  thus  making 
specific  recommendation  on  ordinary  affairs,  leaving  these 
to  occur  naturally  to  the  members.  The  present  year  had 
been  made  an  exception,  however,  in  order  to  give  no  founda¬ 
tion  to  the  House  for  claiming  that  specific  requests  had  not 
been  sent  down.  Despite  his  precaution,  the  House  on 
July  4,  1769,  expressed  a  wish  that  the  Governor  had  pointed 
out  just  what  was  expected  in  the  way  of  legislation,  which 
brought  from  Bernard  the  following  comment: 

105  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts ,  III,  243. 

106  Journal,  June  27,  28,  and  30  and  July  14,  1769.  Bernard  to  Barrington, 
April  5,  1769,  ibid.,  p.  191,  and  note,  p.  192. 


190 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


The  barefaced  Chicanery  &  Falsity  of  this  Writing,  as  well  as 
the  Stile,  which  is  well  known,  make  it  evident  that  it  was  wrote 
by  Adams;  and  yet  it  was  sent  to  the  Council  to  originate  with 
them  .  .  .  [for  obvious  reasons.]107 

Meanwhile,  Bernard  had  requested  the  Assembly  to  make 
provision,  according  to  the  parliamentary  law,  for  the  troops 
then  quartered  in  the  province,  and  also  to  continue  a 
temporary  provision  which  he  had  himself,  on  the  advice  of 
the  Council,  arranged.  Pending  reply,  the  House  adopted 
a  series  of  nineteen  resolves  touching  taxation,  the  quartering 
of  troops,  intermeddling  by  General  Gage  in  civil  affairs, 
interference  with  judicial  process,  and  the  following: 

Resolved ,  That  Governor  Bernard  by  a  wanton  and  precipitate 
Dissolution  of  the  last  years  Assembly,  and  refusing  to  call 
another,  tho’  repeatedly  requested  by  the  People,  acted  against 
the  Spirit  of  a  free  Constitution;  and  if  such  proceedure  be  law¬ 
ful  it  may  be  in  his  power  whenever  he  pleases  to  render  himself 
Absolute. 

Resolved ,  That  a  general  Discontent,  on  Account  of  the  Revenue 
Acts,  an  Expectation  of  the  sudden  Arrival  of  a  Military  Power  to 
enforce  the  Execution  of  those  Acts,  an  Apprehension  of  the  Troops 
being  upon  the  Inhabitants,  when  our  Petitions  were  not  permitted 
to  reach  the  Royal  Ear,  the  General  Court  at  such  a  juncture  dis¬ 
solved.  The  Governor,  refusing  to  call  a  new  one  and  the  People 
reduced  almost  to  a  State  of  Despair,  rendered  it  highly  expedient 
and  necessary  for  the  People  to  convene  by  their  committees,  asso¬ 
ciate,  consult  and  advise  the  best  means  to  promote  Peace  and 
good  Order;  to  present  their  united  Complaints  to  the  Throne 
and  jointly  to  pray  for  the  Royal  Interposition  in  Favour  of  their 
Violated  Rights.  Nor  can  this  Proceedure  possibly  be  illegal,  as 
they  expressly  disclaimed  all  Governmental  Acts. 

Resolved ,  As  the  opinion  of  this  House,  that  Governor  Bernard 
in  his  Letters  to  Lord  Hillsborough,  his  Majesty’s  Secretary  of 

107  Bernard  to  Hillsborough,  July  11,  1769,  Bernard  Letters ,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard 
College  Library,  VII,  180. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  191 


State,  has  given  a  false  and  highly  injurious  Representation  of 
the  Conduct  of  his  Majesty’s  truly  loyal  and  faithful  Council 
of  this  Colony,  and  of  the  Magistrates,  Overseers  of  the  Poor  and 
Inhabitants  of  the  Town  of  Boston,  tending  to  bring  on  those 
respectable  Bodies  of  Men,  particularly  on  some  Individuals,  the 
unmerited  displeasure  of  our  gracious  Sovereign;  to  introduce  a 
Military  Government  and  to  mislead  both  Houses  of  Parliament 
into  such  severe  Resolutions  as  a  true,  just  and  candid  State  of 
Facts  must  have  prevented. 

Resolved ,  That  Governor  Bernard  in  the  Letters  before  men¬ 
tioned,  by  falsely  representing  that  it  was  become  “necessary  the 
King  should  have  the  Council  Chamber  in  his  own  hands”  and 
“should  be  enabled  by  Parliament  to  supercede  by  order  in  his 
Privy  Council”  Commissions  granted  in  his  Name  and  under  his 
Seal  “throughout  the  Colonies”  has  discovered  his  enmity  to  the 
true  Spirit  of  the  British  Constitution,  to  the  Liberties  of  the 
Colonies;  and  has  struck  at  the  Root  of  some  of  the  most  invaluable 
Constitutional  and  Charter  Rights  of  this  Province;  the  Perfidy  of 
which,  at  the  very  time  he  professed  himself  a  warm  Friend  to  the 
Charter,  is  altogether  unparallelled  by  any  in  his  Station,  and 
ought  never  to  be  forgotten.108 

Shortly  afterward  there  appeared  in  several  news  sheets 
what  purported  to  be  the  substance  of  the  above;  and  so 
alarmed  were  the  Governor  and  certain  of  the  military 
officers  that  the  64th  regiment,  which  Gage  had  recently 
ordered  to  embark,  was  retained.  To  Bernard’s  formal  pro¬ 
test  regarding  the  reported  resolves,  the  House  replied  that 
the  printed  copies  were  not  authentic.  Upon  learning  of 
this,  the  Lieutenant-Governor,  Thomas  Hutchinson,  upon 
whom  the  responsibility  of  the  government  in  Bernard’s 
absence  was  about  to  fall,  expressed  his  willingness  to  permit 
departure  of  the  regiment.  The  chief  difference  between 
the  reported  and  the  authentic  set  of  resolves,  the  latter  in 
the  form  above  quoted,  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  first  declared 

108  Journal ,  July  6,  7  (the  resolves),  and  12,  1769,  pp.  52,  57,  68. 


192 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


that  laws  emanating  from  any  source  whatsoever  in  which 
the  subjects  were  unrepresented  had  no  binding  force  upon 
them.  The  second  form  revised  this  so  as  to  refer  only  to 
laws  imposing  taxes.109 

The  Governor’s  recommendation  of  provision  for  the 
troops  provoked  another  remonstrance  from  the  Assembly 
against  their  presence  in  the  colony,  especially  in  time  of 
peace,  and  the  repeated  insinuation  of  Bernard’s  responsi¬ 
bility  for  them.  The  King  himself  in  such  cases,  declared 
the  representatives,  made  only  requisitions;  the  barracks 
master  made  demands.  “The  very  Nature  of  a  Free  Consti¬ 
tution”  required  that  the  support  be  given  only  “by  the 
Aids  voluntarily  granted  by  the  Commons.”  By  the  very 
terms  of  the  Mutiny  Act,  the  Governor  and  Council  were 
denied  any  right  to  make  the  appropriation  desired;  the 
Act  itself,  moreover,  was  destructive  of  the  privileges  of  the 
Assembly.  As  to  the  old  grievance  concerning  taxation, 
the  members  now  took  “Leave  to  observe,  that  in  strictness 
all  those  Acts  may  be  rather  called  Acts  for  raising  a 
tribute  in  America  for  the  further  Purposes  of  Dissi¬ 
pation  among  Placemen  and  Pensioners.”  And  the  require¬ 
ment  to  provision  the  troops  was  deemed  a  grievance  more 
intolerable  even  than  the  tyranny  of  the  Stamp  Act,  for 
which  reasons  came  the  declaration  that  the  representatives 
would  “never  make  provision”  for  this  purpose.110 

The  above  was  the  last  address  from  a  colonial  Assembly 
to  Governor  Francis  Bernard.  On  the  same  day,  July  15, 
1769,  he  prorogued  the  General  Court  until  the  following 
January  10,  and  soon  after  embarked  for  England.  In  his 
final  message  to  the  House  was  contained  the  following 
warning : 

109  Bernard  to  Hillsborough,  July  7,  1769,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks  IV,  Harvard 
College  Library,  VII,  180-182.  Bernard  to  Hillsborough,  July,  1769,  ibid.,  pp. 
182/. 

110  Journal,  July  15,  1769,  pp.  82/. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  193 


To  his  Majesty  therefore,  and  if  he  pleases,  to  his  Parliament 
must  be  referred  your  invasion  of  the  rights  of  the  Imperial  Sover¬ 
eignty.  By  your  own  acts  you  will  be  judged.  You  need  not  be 
apprehensive  of  any  misrepresentations;  as  it  is  not  in  the  power 
of  your  enemies,  if  you  have  any,  to  add  to  your  publications. 
They  are  plain  and  explicit,  and  need  no  comment.111 

Thus  closed  the  last  session  under  Governor  Bernard, 
lasting  forty-six  days,  and  therefore  the  longest  ever  held 
during  the  summer  season  session.  Nevertheless,  according 
to  the  Governor,  there  never  was  so  little  real  business  done 
as  at  this  session.  The  chief  part  of  the  time  had  been  em¬ 
ployed  in  denying  the  Power  of  the  Parliament,  arraigning 
and  condemning  its  Acts,  abusing  the  King’s  ministers  at 
home  and  his  principal  officers  in  America,  “  reproaching  the 
whole  British  Nation,  &  declaring  in  plain,  if  not  direct 
Terms  their  right  and  Intention  of  separating  themselves 
from  its  government.  Everything  bad  was  expected  from 
them;  But  their  Acts  have  exceeded  all  expectation  &  have 
been  carried  to  a  greater  length  than  ever  have  been  known 
before.” 112  His  failure  to  end,  by  dissolution  or  prorogation, 
a  session  so  extraordinarily  defiant  and  obviously  disloyal, 
Bernard  explained  on  the  ground  that  the  House  was  en¬ 
deavoring  to  provoke  this  very  thing,  thus  preventing  com¬ 
pletion  of  the  public  business.  As  a  consequence  through¬ 
out  the  province  would  have  arisen  the  cry  of  persecution, 
and  of  interference  by  the  Governor  in  the  necessary  progress 
and  maintenance  of  self-government.113 

Before  proceeding  to  the  consideration  of  the  critical 
events  about  to  transpire  in  the  colony  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  it  may  be  of  interest  to  recall  that  the  subject  upper- 

111  Journal,  July  15,  1769;  cf.  also  Barrington  to  Bernard,  Sept.  7,  1769,  Bar¬ 
rington- Bernard  Correspondence,  p.  208. 

112  Bernard  to  Hillsborough,  July  17,  1769,  Bernard  Letters,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard 
College  Library,  VII,  186. 

113  Ibid.,  p.  187. 


194 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


most  in  many  minds  during  this  period  was  liberty  —  chiefly 
in  its  relations  to  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  exercise  of 
the  prerogative.  Before  the  close  of  Governor  Bernard’s 
administration,  the  people  had  come  to  regard  him  as  an 
enemy  of  these  cherished  principles  of  English  freedom.  He 
had  spent  eleven  years  in  America  —  two  harmonious  years 
as  Governor  of  New  Jersey,  and  nine  in  Massachusetts. 
During  the  first  five  years  in  the  Bay  Colony,  he  had  been 
at  least  acceptable;  the  last  four,  however,  saw  continual 
conflict.  For  some  reason  the  people  were  convinced  that 
he  was  mainly  responsible  for  the  presence  of  the  troops; 
and  troops  meant  force,  and  a  consequent  menace  to  liberty. 
They  were  a  symbol  of  and  a  constant  reminder  of  sovereignty 
superimposed  and  of  Cromwellian  military  rule.  Moreover, 
as  opposition  to  full  control  by  Parliament  grew  stronger, 
the  Governor,  by  supporting,  as  his  office  demanded,  that 
control,  became  even  more  decidedly,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
people,  an  enemy  to  the  cherished  liberty.  If  after  the  first 
five  years  Governor  Bernard  had  left  the  province,  he  would 
have  been  rated  as  one  of  the  best  of  royal  representatives. 
But  in  the  circumstances  toward  the  end  of  his  administra¬ 
tion  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  preserve  at  once  the  favor 
of  the  people,  loyalty  to  his  office,  and  the  approbation  of 
his  superiors. 

By  that  time  also,  it  may  be  said  that  the  old  subjects  of 
controversy  —  the  salary  question,  the  extent  of  executive 
veto  power,  the  Assembly’s  control  of  treasury  accounts, 
emission  of  paper  money  and  the  rest  —  had  fused  into 
the  one  great  fundamental  problem,  namely,  the  determina¬ 
tion  of  the  limits  of  colonial  dependence  and  independence 
in  relation  to  control  by  the  parent  state. 

When,  toward  the  end  of  July,  1769,  Governor  Bernard 
sailed  for  England,  Boston  rejoiced,  guns  were  fired,  and  the 
Liberty  Tree  was  bedecked.  His  substitute,  the  Lieutenant- 
Governor,  Thomas  Hutchinson,  was  well  known  in  the 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  195 


province.  Ten  years  of  experience  as  representative,  three 
as  speaker,  seventeen  as  Councillor,  ten  as  Lieutenant- 
Governor,  and  eight  in  the  office  of  chief  justice  had  afforded 
him  rare  opportunity  of  becoming  thoroughly  conversant 
with  both  the  temper  of  the  people  and  the  nature  of  the 
political  situation.  In  the  House,  however,  because  of 
Hutchinson's  pronounced  views  in  favor  of  the  prerogative 
as  against  the  growing  spirit  of  independence,  he  was  already 
in  ill  repute.  No  sooner  had  his  expected  accession  to  the 
chair  become  known  in  the  colony  than  hostile  reports  con¬ 
cerning  him  began  to  circulate.  In  fact,  the  previous  pro¬ 
rogation  from  July  15,  1769,  to  the  following  January  10 
had  been  ordered  by  Bernard  expressly  4 4  to  postpone  the 
Days  of  his  Trouble,”  as  well  as  to  allow  time  for  the  arrival 
from  England  of  definite  instructions  concerning  the  dis¬ 
turbed  situation.114  Hutchinson’s  oath  to  support  the  pre¬ 
rogative  inaugurated  the  long  career  of  conflict  that  ensued. 
Although  it  had  been  his  early  preference  to  steer  a  middle 
course,  and  to  appear  equally  solicitous  for  the  interests  of 
England  and  of  the  colony,  he  was  before  very  long,  owing 
to  riotous  conditions,  driven  to  an  attempted  rescue  of  the 
prerogative. 

Prorogations  beyond  the  date  above  mentioned  delayed 
Hutchinson’s  meeting  with  the  General  Court  until  March 
15,  1770.  Before  that  time,  however,  arose  circumstances 
that  would  have  ruined,  for  any  loyal  Crown  appointee,  all 
hope  of  harmony.  These  were  the  uprisings  of  the  populace 
because  of  the  restrictive  and  taxation  measures ;  the  indict¬ 
ment  by  the  Superior  Court  of  Suffolk  County  of  Governor 
Bernard,  General  Gage,  and  of  other  Crown  officials;  the 
multitudes  of  seditious  pamphlets  and  newspaper  articles; 
positive  insults  to  the  detested  British  troops;  illegal  as¬ 
semblages  in  Boston,  and,  in  spite  of  Hutchinson’s  order,  the 

114  Bernard  to  Hillsborough,  July  17,  17G9,  Bernard  Letters ,  Sparks,  IV,  Harvard 
College  Library,  VII,  190;  cf.  also  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  254/f. 


196 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


refusal  of  the  justices  to  interfere,  also  of  the  gatherings 
themselves,  to  disperse  upon  reading  of  the  order  by  the 
sheriff.  Finally,  in  March,  1770,  less  than  a  fortnight  before 
the  General  Court  was  to  convene,  occurred  the  Boston 
Massacre.115 

The  very  fact  of  an  unusually  long  prorogation  itself 
caused  considerable  disaffection  in  the  province.  For  long 
the  people  had  been  accustomed  to  a  winter  session.  But 
royal  instructions  had  caused  the  extension  of  Bernard’s 
prorogation  to  the  above  mentioned  date,  a  policy  adopted 
in  order  to  give  time  for  consideration  of  measures  to  be 
pursued  in  consequence  of  the  Associations  to  prevent  the 
importation  of  British  goods.  But  prorogation  merely  by 
reason  of  a  royal  instruction,  declared  the  House,  was  an 
infraction  of  their  “essential  rights”  as  men  and  citizens, 
and  contrary  to  both  the  charter  and  the  British  Constitu¬ 
tion.  They  protested  also  the  removal  of  the  General  Court 
to  Cambridge,  requesting  that  it  be  returned  to  Boston. 
Hutchinson,  however,  refused  to  violate  his  instructions,  or 
on  their  request  to  submit  a  copy  of  them.  The  House  re¬ 
peated  the  request,  citing  the  law  that  required  meetings  of 
the  Assembly  to  be  held  in  the  Town  House  in  Boston,  and 
reminding  the  Lieutenant-Governor  of  the  fate  of  a  bill  in 
Parliament  that  had  been  designed  to  give  to  the  royal  in¬ 
structions  the  force  of  law,  and  which  the  Commons  “with 
Disdain”  had  rejected.  But  to  no  avail.  Then  was  inserted 
in  the  Journal  a  copy  of  the  writ  directing  the  holding  of 
meetings  in  Boston;  and  accompanying  this  a  set  of  resolves 
pronouncing  the  removal  to  be  a  grievance,  and  illegal,  and 
that  the  House  would  consent  to  proceed  to  business  at 
Cambridge  only  under  protest.116 

115  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  262,  240Jf.,  267jf.,  271Jf.  Journal,  March  15, 
1770,  and  ibid.,  p.  89. 

116  Hillsborough  to  Hutchinson,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2447.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5, 
pp.  394-400.  Journal,  March  15,  16,  17,  22,  23,  and  24,  1770. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  197 


In  this  first  session  the  chief  occasion  of  controversy  was 
Hutchinson’s  suggestion  of  measures  to  suppress  disorders 
and  riots,  in  which  he  instanced  the  fate  of  a  customs  house 
official  twice  tarred  and  feathered.117  In  reply  the  House 
expatiated  on  the  ordinarily  peaceful  and  law-abiding  con¬ 
dition  of  the  province,  in  turn  suggesting  that  the  origin  of 
any  new-fashioned  disorders  should  be  laid  to  oppression  of 
the  people,  and  that  the  remedy  lay  in  removal  of  the  op¬ 
pression,  and  in  punishment  of  the  responsible  parties.  Nor 
could  they  understand  why  Hutchinson  placed  upon  this 
single  instance  so  much  stress,  passing  silently  over  others 
“more  Heinous  .  .  .  and  dangerous,  .  .  .  those  Enormities 
notoriously  committed  by  the  Soldiery,  .  .  .  which  in  many 
instances  had  strangely  escaped  punishment.”  Again  the 
presence  of  the  troops  was  referred  to  as  an  intolerable 
grievance,  a  violation  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  1689,  and  in 
such  terms  as  the  following: 

Such  a  Standing  Army  must  be  designed  to  subjugate  the 
People  to  arbitrary  Measures.  It  is  a  most  violent  Infraction  of 
their  natural  and  constitutional  Rights.  It  is  an  unlawful  Assem¬ 
bly  of  all  others,  the  most  dangerous  and  alarming,  and  every 
instance  of  its  actually  restraining  the  Liberty  of  any  Individual 
is  a  Crime  which  infinitely  exceeds  what  the  Law  intends  by  a 
Riot. 

We  shall  not  enlarge  on  the  multiplied  Outrages  committed  by 
this  unlawful  Assembly.  In  frequently  assaulting  his  Majesty’s 
peaceable  and  loyal  Subjects;  in  beating  and  wounding  the 
Magistrate  when  in  the  Execution  of  his  Office;  in  refusing 
Prisoners  out  of  the  Hand  of  Justice;  and  finally,  in  perpetuating 
the  most  horrid  Slaughter  of  a  number  of  Inhabitants  but  a  few 
days  before  the  Sitting  of  this  Assembly,  which  your  Honor  must 
undoubtedly  have  heard  of.  But,  not  the  least  notice  of  these 
outrageous  Offences  have  been  taken;  nor  can  we  find  the  most 
distant  Hint  of  the  late  inhuman  and  barbarous  Action,  either  in 

117  Journal,  April  7,  1770,  p.  139.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts ,  III,  283. 


198 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


your  speech  at  the  opening  of  the  present  session,  or  even  in  this 
Message  to  both  Houses.118 

Complaints  were  also  made  concerning  seizures  by  customs 
house  officials,  prosecution  in  Admiralty  Courts  only,  and 
removal  of  the  General  Court  to  Cambridge.  The  military, 
however,  constituted  the  greatest  grievance;  and  until  the 
troops  were  removed,  the  Assembly  could  hope  for  nothing 
but  “Tyranny  and  Confusion/’ 

Into  this  controversy  Hutchinson  refused  to  be  drawn. 
In  silence  he  passed  over  everything  except  the  insinuation 
of  his  efforts  to  secure  by  force  the  quartering  of  the  troops. 
On  this  subject  his  answering  address  was  a  complete 
exoneration.  With  a  declaration  that  the  above  remon¬ 
strances  should  be  submitted  to  the  King,  he  dissolved  the 
General  Court  on  April  23,  1770.  The  annual  election  was 
approaching,  and  soon  a  new  Assembly  would  convene. 

In  the  same  session  there  was  some  slight  difficulty  over 
the  matter  of  Hutchinson’s  delayed  salary  of  £550,  and  his 
refusal  to  approve  the  choice  of  John  Hancock  as  speaker 
pro  tempore .119 

Already,  after  only  a  few  months  of  an  increasingly  stormy 
administration,  Hutchinson’s  health  was  affected.  And  al¬ 
though  rumor  was  making  him  the  successor  to  Governor 
Bernard,  he  wrote  to  decline  the  honor,  requesting  also  to  be 
removed  from  his  present  office,  not  relishing  the  prospect 
of  enforcing,  practically  single  handed,  the  King’s  preroga¬ 
tive.120 

At  the  new  election  in  May,  1770,  the  Boston  representa¬ 
tives  received  from  their  constituents  special  and  significant 
instructions;  i.e.,  regarding  the  removal  to  Harvard  College; 
on  the  arbitrary  determination  of  the  people’s  rights;  on  the 

118  Journal,  April  23,  1770,  pp.  178,  180. 

119  Journal,  April  11,  13,  17,  and  20,  1770,  pp.  149,  155,  167/.,  175. 

120  Hillsborough  to  Hutchinson,  April  14,  1770,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2456. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  91,  92.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  290. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  199 


extent  of  the  King’s  prerogative,  i.e.,  its  limitation  by  exist¬ 
ing  law;  on  the  state  of  the  militia,  the  question  of  the 
betterment  and  increase  of  population,  and  of  home  manu¬ 
factures —  a  measure  described  as  “a  very  pacifick  device 
for  the  defeat  of  our  malicious  foes;”  on  the  union  of  the 
colonies,  and  “the  unwarrantable  practice  of  ministerial  in¬ 
structions  to  the  commanders-in-chief  of  this  province.”  121 

At  the  new  session,  which  was  also  held  at  Cambridge, 
the  Assembly  again  contested  the  removal,  reminding 
Hutchinson  that  “the  Prerogative  is  a  discretionary  Power 
in  some  Instances  vested  in  the  King,  only  for  the  Good  of 
the  subject.”  But  Hutchinson  replied  that  he  could  not 
violate  his  instructions,  which  had  directed  the  removal. 
The  ill  feeling  increased  when  he  disapproved  the  choice  for 
the  Council  of  John  Hancock  and  another  anti-prerogative 
member.122 

The  opening  address  mentioned  only  the  usual  topics,  sup¬ 
port  of  the  government,  taxation,  the  public  debt,  and  closed 
with  hopes  of  a  “happy  Harmony.”  But  the  House,  insist¬ 
ing  on  the  old  grievance,  requested  a  copy  of  the  instructions 
enjoining  the  meeting  at  Harvard  College.  Hutchinson  then 
stated  that  the  instructions  made  no  reference  to  Harvard 
College,  but  simply  to  Cambridge,  and  he  was  willing  to 
adjourn  them  to  any  house  in  that  place,  though  not  willing, 
because  of  the  same  instructions,  to  submit  the  requested 
copy.  After  some  debate,  by  a  vote  of  ninety  to  six,  the 
House  determined  in  spite  of  the  instructions  to  make  then 
and  there  a  “constitutional  Stand”  against  the  removal  from 
Boston,  and  until  return  was  effected  resolved  to  proceed 
to  no  legislative  business.  To  find  himself  thus  disagreed 
with  by  so  considerable  a  majority  was  considered  a  great 
misfortune  by  the  Lieutenant-Governor,  yet  he  still  refused 
to  act  against  his  instructions.  Thinking  to  induce  harmony, 

121  For  complete  text  see  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  Appendix  R. 

122  Journal,  May  30  and  31,  1770. 


200 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


he  reminded  the  members  of  the  proposition  favored  by  a 
good  majority  in  the  House  some  twenty  years  previous,  after 
a  fire  had  destroyed  the  Court  House,  to  rebuild  outside  of 
Boston,  preferably  in  some  country  place.  The  final  vote 
on  this  occasion  had  been  a  tie;  and  the  casting  vote,  which 
kept  the  Court  House  in  Boston,  had  been  made  by  Hutch¬ 
inson  himself,  who  was  speaker  at  the  time.  No  effect,  how¬ 
ever,  was  perceived  in  the  Assembly;  sharp  messages  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  exchanged,  all  in  discussion  of  the  power  of 
royal  instructions  to  control  the  Governor  in  his  dealings 
with  the  General  Court;  and  the  purpose  to  suspend  busi¬ 
ness  was  repeated.123 

Hutchinson  would  have  discontinued  the  session  at  this 
juncture  had  not  important  messages  requiring  the  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  legislature  been  expected  from  England.  Still 
maintaining  that  the  instructions  were  in  violation  of  the 
charter,  the  House  would  not  recede  from  its  position,  and 
business  amounted  simply  to  a  roll  call  twice  daily.  At  last, 
after  the  members  had  again  requested  leave  to  return,  and 
the  expected  papers  failing  to  arrive,  Hutchinson  prorogued 
the  Court  for  a  month.  During  this  dispute  the  Council 
supported  the  House.124 

At  the  reconvening  on  July  25,  1770,  no  change  on  either 
side  appeared,  lengthy  messages  continued,  and  Hutchinson 
finally  ordered  a  further  prorogation  until  the  fall.  Mean¬ 
time  from  the  ministry  came  the  following  observation: 
“The  Doctrines  set  up  by  the  House  of  Assembly  &  the 
Council  tend  to  destroy  every  power  reserved  to  the  Crown 
by  the  Charter,  &  therefore  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
show  that  His  Majesty  will  not  suffer  them  to  have  any 
effect.”  125 

123  Journal ,  1770-1771,  pp.  10,  15/.,  23/.,  36/. 

124  Journal ,  June  16,  1770,  p.  38;  cf.  also  pp.  42/.,  49/ 

125  Hillsborough  to  Hutchinson,  August,  1770,  Transcripts ,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2469. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  181,  182.  Journal ,  1770-1771,  pp.  57,  58,  passim. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  201 


In  the  mean  time  the  charter  provision  that  conferred  on 
the  Governor  the  powers  of  commander-in-chief  had  been 
changed  to  the  extent  that  Hutchinson  had  received  orders 
to  hand  over  to  the  King’s  troops  the  fort  and  Castle.  After 
some  hesitation  he  obeyed.  This  occasioned,  when  the 
Assembly  met  the  following  Sept.  26,  1770,  a  resolution 
for  a  day  of  prayer  and  humiliation.  The  implications 
in  this  order  of  disloyalty  in  the  province  were  keenly  re¬ 
sented,  and  the  Assembly  desired  to  know  who  was  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  extraordinary  measure,  also  the  charges  against 
them  and  by  whom  preferred,  and  especially  whether 
Hutchinson  still  held  jurisdiction  over  these  places.  Can¬ 
didly  the  Lieutenant-Governor  informed  them  that  he 
beT  eved  the  explanation  lay  in  their  own  remonstrance  of 
the  preceding  April  7,  and  in  the  instructions  given  by  their 
constituents,  both  of  which  he  had  sent  to  the  King.126 

His  military  powers,  he  assured  them,  were  in  no  degree 
lessened,  which  assurance  the  House  verified  in  various  ways. 
As  a  result  of  their  interview  with  the  commander  himself, 
it  appeared  that  Hutchinson  had  really  relinquished  his  au¬ 
thority.  This  was  declared  to  be  a  most  serious  grievance, 
and  he  was  requested  to  secure  the  lost  rights.  The  chief 
issue  in  this  controversy  was  whether  the  charter  provision 
had  been  or  could  be  superseded  by  the  royal  instructions.127 

At  the  opening  of  this  session  the  House  had  again  referred 
to  the  grievance  of  removal  from  Boston,  inquiring  whether 
anv  late  instructions  on  the  matter  had  been  received. 

t / 

They  were  informed  that  the  King  had  indorsed  Hutchinson’s 
policy  of  holding  sessions  at  Cambridge,  and  had  permitted 
him  to  convene  the  General  Court  at  any  place  except 
Boston.  This  time,  however,  the  House  did  not  refuse  as 

126  Hillsborough  to  Hutchinson,  July  6,  1770,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2462. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  167-171;  cf.  also  Journal,  Sept.  29,  1770,  p.  83; 
October  13  and  16,  pp.  94^.,  100.  Cf.  supra,  pp.  38 3Jf.  for  remonstrance. 

™  Journal,  Nov.  20  and  Oct.  23,  1770,  pp.  171,  83. 


202 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


formerly  to  proceed  to  business,  probably  through  anxiety 
for  the  fort  and  Castle,  which  were  in  the  hands  of  the 
regulars.  With  a  resolve  that  the  province  was  laboring 
under  “new,  additional,  and  insupportable  Grievances, ” 
business  was  resumed,  but  “only  from  absolute  Necessity,” 
and  in  order  “radically  to  redress  Grievances.”  128  Progress, 
however,  was  slight.  After  seven  weeks,  when  Hutchinson 
complained  that  the  session  was  bringing  practically  no  re¬ 
sults,  the  members  replied  that  the  paralysis  of  legislative 
business  during  the  preceding  two  years  was  occasioned  by 
the  frequent  interruptions  made  by  the  chair  itself  through 
dissolutions  and  prorogations;  and  they  also  reminded  him 
that  the  time  spent  by  the  House  in  its  deliberations  was  a 
subject  in  which  the  chair  had  no  concern.  With  this  the 
request  to  be  returned  to  Boston  was  again,  but  without 
result,  repeated.129 

Early  in  these  deliberations  a  petty  dispute,  important 
only  in  its  probable  consequences,  arose  because  of  a  change 
introduced  by  the  Assembly  in  the  form  of  expressing  Jaws. 
The  approved  form  described  laws  as  enacted  “by  the 
Governor,  Council,  and  House  of  Representatives,”  to  which 
the  Assembly  now  added  “in  General  Court  assembled.” 
To  Hutchinson’s  protests,  and  to  his  citation  of  the  royal 
instructions  requiring  the  first  form,  the  House  finally 
yielded,  not,  however,  without  demanding  the  reason  for 
the  instructions;  and  asking,  when  he  had  none  to  offer: 
“Where  then  is  the  Freedom  of  the  Governor  of  the  Province 
if  he  is  to  govern  Twenty-Eight  years  together  by  positive 
Instructions  from  other  Persons  at  three  thousand  miles 
distance,  without  being  able,  in  all  that  Time,  to  discover 
any  Reasons  for  them.”  130 

But  the  Lieutenant-Governor  only  pointedly  observed 

128  Journal ,  Oct.  4,  1770,  pp.  90/.,  187. 

129  Journal,  Nov.  16,  1770,  p.  163. 

130  Journal,  Nov.  2,  5,  and  16,  1770,  pp.  128,  134,  162. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  203 


that  their  constituents  would  no  doubt  be  surprised  at  their 
passing  so  many  laws,  and  declaring  immediately  afterward 
that  they  judged  them  of  no  validity  without  the  clause  in 
question.  Eighteen  acts  had  been  passed.  Hutchinson  also 
remarked  that  in  spite  of  the  alleged  inconvenience  of  sitting 
at  Cambridge,  they  had  in  six  weeks  done  more  business 
than  had  ever,  within  his  recollection,  been  accomplished  in 
a  similar  period.  But  by  this  apparent  effort  at  conciliation 
he  was  not  to  be  affected: 

Upon  the  whole,  Gentlemen,  I  should  do  myself  injustice  if  I 
did  not  observe  that  it  gives  me  great  satisfaction  to  reflect  that 
when  you  are,  by  every  way  in  your  power  seeking  to  impeach 
my  conduct  since  I  have  been  in  the  chair,  you  have  been  unsuc¬ 
cessful  in  every  attempt.  You  will  always  endeavor,  in  vain,  to 
move  me  to  give  up  to  you  any  part  of  the  Prerogative  of  the 
Crown;  I  will  never  make  any  encroachment  upon  the  Rights 
of  the  People.131 

It  may  also  be  noted  that  in  this  session  the  House  was 
significantly  solicitous  regarding  the  state  of  the  militia  of 
the  province,  insisting  that  the  Lieutenant-Governor  should 
fill  all  vacancies,  and  alleging  as  the  reason  the  imminence 
of  war  with  Spain.  In  the  following  are  seen  evidences 
of  still  further  difficulties:  the  creation  of  a  committee  of 
correspondence  and  the  choice  as  agent  of  the  colony  of 
Benjamin  Franklin.  As  a  result  of  general  manifestations 
in  the  province,  there  were  now  being  considered  in  England 
measures  for  the  ‘‘Explanation  &  Reform  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  Massachusetts  Bay.”  132 

In  this  year,  also,  no  winter  session  was  called,  the  next 
meeting  of  the  General  Court  occurring  in  the  spring  of 

131  Journal,  Nov.  20,  1770,  pp.  179,  182;  Oct.  31  and  Nov.  7  and  20,  1770, 
pp.  124,  139,  175. 

132  Hillsborough  to  Hutchinson,  Oct.  3,  1770,  Transcripts,  p.  2471.  P.  R.  O., 
C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  705,  pp.  184-186. 


204 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


1771.  Meanwhile,  Hutchinson’s  commission  as  Governor, 
which  under  pressure  he  had  accepted,  arrived.  According 
to  his  own  testimony  the  mass  of  the  people  was  friendly  to 
him,  while  opposition  came  chiefly  from  a  few  leaders. 
Therefore  from  all  sides  poured  in  congratulations,  but  not 
from  the  House  or  from  the  Congregational  ministers.133 

The  fact  that  the  long-established  custom  of  holding  a 
winter  session  was  again  ignored  must  have  placed  the 
Assembly  in  no  pleasant  mood  for  the  meeting  that  opened 
on  April  3,  1771. 134  Hardly  had  the  members  come  to  order 
when  the  old  protest  against  meeting  outside  of  Boston  was 
renewed.  A  motion  not  to  proceed  to  business,  however, 
was  negatived.  Chiefly  because  of  the  Assembly’s  denial  of 
the  constitutional  right  of  the  Crown  in  reference  to  the 
removals,  Hutchinson  refused  even  to  request  the  King’s 
leave  to  effect  the  much  desired  return  to  Boston.135 

At  this  point  the  salary  question,  after  long  slumber, 
again  caused  conflict,  this  time  taking  a  strange  turn.  After 
some  preliminary  skirmishing,  in  which  the  Governor  dis¬ 
approved  the  choice  of  John  Hancock  for  commissary- 
general  and  the  Assembly  again  refused  to  heed  the  former’s 
request  for  repairs  to  the  Governor’s  residence  in  Boston, 
the  old  controversy,  in  a  new  and  strange  guise,  arose.  In 
times  past  the  trouble  had  been  occasioned  by  the  refusal  of 
the  Assembly  to  pay  adequate  salaries.  Now  it  was  due  to 
the  Governor’s  refusal  to  accept  the  salaries  when  offered, 
for  the  appeals  of  previous  Governors  had  finally  been 
heeded  in  England  and  the  executive’s  salary  was  being  pro¬ 
vided  by  the  Crown.  Therefore,  when  Hutchinson  refused 
to  accept  not  only  the  salary  grant  but  also  the  provision 
for  payment  of  arrears  that  was  then  made,  immediately, 

133  Journal ,  April  3  and  4,  1771,  pp.  187,  188.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III, 
333/. 

134  Previous  prorogations:  Nov.  20,  1770,  to  Jan.  10,  1771,  and  further  to 
April  3.  Journal,  pp.  187/. 

136  Journal,  April  3  and  4,  1771,  pp.  188,  190. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  20 5 


on  the  motion  of  Adams,  the  House  inquired  concerning 
the  source  of  his  support,  asking  if  it  came  4 ‘independently 
of  His  Majesty’s  Commons.”  136  Then  appeared  in  print  a 
formal  protest  from  the  House,  declaring  in  effect  that 
royal  instructions  had  not  the  force  of  law  either  with  the 
Governor  or  with  his  subjects;  moreover,  that  continual 
dissolutions,  either  of  Parliament  by  the  King  or  of  the 
General  Court  by  the  Governor,  constituted  a  ‘‘Dissolution 
of  the  Social  Compact;”  and  that  the  removal  of  the  Court 
from  Boston,  “merely  in  Obedience  to  an  Instruction”  and 
with  no  exercise  of  the  Governor’s  own  right  of  “Judgment 
and  Discretion,”  was  in  violation  of  the  charter.  There  were 
insinuations  also  that  Hutchinson’s  purpose  in  upholding 
the  prerogative  was  “Preservation  of  Place,”  which  the 
Governor  emphatically  denied,  again  explaining  that  loyalty 
to  his  trust  connoted  obedience  to  the  royal  instructions. 
This  declaration,  together  with  the  repetition  of  the  negative 
on  the  choice  of  John  Hancock  and  the  other  Councillor- 
elect  of  the  previous  year,  as  well  as  certain  elements  in 
Hutchinson’s  opening  address  to  the  Court  and  the  develop¬ 
ments  concerning  the  salary  question,  the  supply  and  tax 
bills,  agents  and  other  minor  matters,  left  the  Assembly  in 
no  amiable  mood.137 

Among  other  things  mentioned  by  Hutchinson  in  his 
opening  address  was  his  praise  to  the  King  of  the  Assembly 
in  its  last  prolific  session.  This,  however,  only  provoked  the 
rejoinder  that  there  had  never  been  any  period  during  which 
the  same  praise  had  not  been  equally  well  merited.  True, 
there  had  existed,  owing  to  various  Acts  of  Parliament,  a 
certain  amount  of  discontent;  but  to  have  interpreted  this 
uneasiness  as  a  “mark  of  Disaffection  toward  His  Majesty’s 
Government”  was  considered  a  gross  misrepresentation. 

136  Journal,  April  10,  17,  24,  and  25,  1771,  pp.  200,  242,  246,  252.  Salary  offered 
was  £1,300;  arrears,  £506. 

137  Journal,  May  30,  June  19,  and  July  5,  1771,  pp.  8,  62 ff.,  116. 


206 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


The  Governor  had  requested  also  that  means  be  taken  for 
prevention  of  destruction  of  the  King’s  woods  by  settlers  in 
doubtfully  valid  land  grants  on  the  western  border;  but 
he  was  informed  that  full  responsibility  in  this  matter  rested 
with  the  Surveyor-General,  and  that  in  consequence  there 
was  “no  Necessity  ...  of  the  Interposition  of  this,  or  of 
any  other  Legislature .”  138 

The  above  mentioned  sentiments,  which  even  in  the  House 
had  met  considerable  opposition,  hinted  of  the  indefinite 
continuation  of  strained  relations.  In  England,  where  they 
were  severely  criticized,  the  remark  is  said  to  have  been 
made  that  “the  same  men  who  denied  the  right  of  the  King 
to  instruct  his  governor,  would  soon  deny  the  right  of 
appointing  him.” 

In  this  session  also  the  renewed  dispute  concerning  the 
salary  occurred  in  connection  with  the  removal  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Court  from  Boston.  Hutchinson  was  receiving  from 
the  Crown  £1,500  annually,  and  he  refused  the  usual  grant 
from  the  Assembly  of  £1,300.  The  members  thereupon 
insisted  that  his  support  should  come  from  the  representa¬ 
tives,  and  not  from  any  other  source.  A  second  grant  was 
accordingly  voted,  and  in  a  later  protest  regarding  the  re¬ 
moval  from  Boston,  the  Assembly  declared  that  because  by 
the  charter  the  Governor  and  other  civil  officers  were  to 
receive  support  from  the  “free  Gift  of  the  General  Assembly,” 
it  would  therefore  be  “dangerous  for  so  important  a  Trust 
as  that  of  convening,  adjourning  or  dissolving  the  General 
Assembly  to  be  placed  in  any  one,  who  is  not  thus  sup¬ 
ported.”  Hutchinson’s  reply  to  the  protest  purposely 
avoided  mention  of  the  oblique  reference  to  the  salary  ques¬ 
tion,  lest  further  controversy  be  thereby  provoked  on  the 
subject  of  the  King’s  right  to  support  the  civil  officers,  nor 
could  he  see  justifiable  foundation  to  the  Assembly’s  strong 
objection  to  the  principle  of  regulation  by  royal  instructions. 

138  Journal ,  May  30  and  June  14,  1771,  pp.  9 ff.,  49 ff.  (Italics  inserted.) 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  207 


To  him  the  instructions  simply  served  to  forestall  a  later  dis¬ 
allowance,  thus  incidentally  saving  much  confusion  by  at  once 
removing  all  doubt  as  to  debatable  public  transactions.139 

Toward  the  close  of  the  session  two  other  controversies 
arose,  but  were  cut  short  by  prorogation.  The  Governor  had 
refused  to  approve  bills  for  the  treasury  supply,  militia,  and 
taxation,  the  latter  by  reason  of  recently  received  instruc¬ 
tions.  A  clause  in  the  tax  laws  placed  a  sort  of  income  tax 
on  the  salaries  of  commissioners  of  the  customs,  and  the 
consequent  complaint  to  the  King  occasioned  the  instruction 
prohibiting  the  Governor’s  assent  to  any  bills  containing 
clauses  authorizing  taxation  of  salaries  of  any  of  the  Crown 
officers.  The  rejection  of  the  bill  caused  uncommon  stir  in 
the  House.  Hutchinson’s  reason  for  non-approval,  that  is, 
obedience  to  royal  instructions,  was  considered  “surprising 
and  alarming.”  Only  too  vividly  did  this  incident  bring  up 
the  question  of  the  King’s  right  to  collect  revenue  through 
the  commissioners  of  the  customs;  and  the  House  declared 
they  knew  of  “no  Commissioners  of  His  Majesty’s  Customs, 
nor  of  any  Revenue  his  Majesty  has  a  Right  to  Establish  in 
North-America.”  By  charter  provision  the  General  As¬ 
sembly  had  been  vested  with  sole  authority  to  levy  upon  the 
persons  and  estates  “of  every  and  all  the  Proprietors  and 
Inhabitants ”  of  the  province.  “Therefore,  ...  to  with¬ 
hold  assent  to  this  Bill,  merely  by  Force  of  Instruction,  is 
effectually  vacating  the  Charter  and  giving  Instructions  the 
Force  of  Laws  .  ,  .  and  such  a  Doctrine  .  .  .  would  render 
the  Reps,  of  a  free  People  mere  machines;  and  they  would 
be  reduced  to  this  fatal  alternative  either  to  have  no  Taxes 
...  at  all,  or  to  have  them  raised  and  levied  in  such  Way 
and  Manner,  and  upon  those  only,  whom  his  Majesty 
pleases.”  140 

139  Journal,  June  19,  1771,  pp.  63jf.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  pp.  343, 
345. 

140  Journal,  July  5,  1771,  pp.  109jf.;  cf.  also  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts , 

III,  344. 


208 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Simultaneously  with  the  above  objection  came  another 
protest  against  Hutchinson’s  disapproval  — -  also  the  result 
of  royal  instructions  —  to  bills  passed  for  payment  of 
separately  appointed  agents  of  the  two  Houses.  Knowing 
that  prorogation  was  imminent,  the  Assembly  requested 
Hutchinson  to  convoke  the  General  Court  in  the  following 
October.  He  replied  that  he  would  do  so  whenever  he 
thought  it  good  for  His  Majesty’s  service.  The  order  for 
prorogation  came  the  same  day,  and  a  recess  of  nine  months 
put  a  temporary  end  to  public  controversies.  These  were 
continued,  however,  in  the  news  sheets,  with  special  reference 
to  the  Governor  and  to  the  commissioners  of  customs.141 

The  “doctrines  and  principles”  manifested  in  the  pre¬ 
ceding  address  and  proceedings  of  the  House  were  considered 
by  the  ministry  to  be  of  “So  dangerous  a  tendency,  and 
strike  so  deep  at  the  just  dependance  of  the  Colonies  upon 
the  Crown  and  Parliament,  that  His  Majesty  is  unwilling 
to  believe  that  they  can  possibly  be  avowed  by  any  real 
friends  to  the  Constitution,  or  that  the  sentiments  and 
opinions  of  his  faithful  subjects  in  the  Massachusetts  Bay 
do  in  any  degree  correspond  therewith.”  142 

At  that  time,  at  the  head  of  the  popular  party,  Samuel 
Adams  stood  alone.  Of  his  co-workers,  Hancock  had  become 
temporarily  estranged,  and  showed  a  marked  tendency  to 
swing  over  to  the  side  of  the  Governor.  Otis,  in  another  fit 
of  insanity,  was  confined  to  Nantasket.143  Adams,  however, 
was  in  every  way  equal  to  the  task  of  fanning  the  flame  of 
opposition : 

141  Instructions  to  Governor  Hutchinson,  April  13,  1771,  Art.  16,  Transcripts, 
Col.  Soc.,  p.  2501.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  203,  pp.  481-514.  Journal,  June  8,  12, 
and  19  and  July  5,  1771,  pp.  32,  42,  64,  111,  113.  Prorogation:  Sept.  4  to  April  4, 
1772.  Cf.  Journal,  pp.  118,  119;  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  345. 

142  Hillsborough  to  Hutchinson,  Dec.  4,  1771,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2548. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  215-220. 

143  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  347. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  209 


The  tragedy  of  American  freedom  is  nearly  completed.  A 
tyranny  seems  to  be  at  the  very  door.  Yet  the  liberties  of  our 
country  are  worth  defending  at  all  hazards.  If  we  should  suffer 
them  to  be  wrested  from  us,  millions  yet  unborn  may  be  the 
miserable  sharers  in  the  event.  Every  step  has  been  taken  but 
one;  and  the  last  appeal  would  require  prudence,  unanimity, 
and  fortitude.  America  must  herself,  under  God,  finally  work 
out  her  own  salvation.144 

The  next  session  was  held  in  the  spring  of  1772.  In  the 
mean  time  Governor  Hutchinson  had  become  still  more  un¬ 
popular.  In  the  previous  fall,  when  he  had  issued  a  thanks¬ 
giving  proclamation,  many  of  the  ministers  refused  to  read 
it  from  their  pulpits;  instead,  they  “implored  of  Almighty 
God  the  restoration  of  lost  liberties.”  145  At  this  session 
Hancock  was  chosen  speaker  pro  tempore.  Although  his 
election  to  the  Council  had  been  twice  negatived,  Hutchinson 
approved  him  for  the  speakership  because  of  his  changed 
relations  with  the  anti-prerogative  party.  Again  the  very 
first  business  was  a  protest  against  the  removal  from  Boston, 
and  Hancock  motioned  for  a  message  requesting,  because  of 
the  inconvenience  of  sitting  at  Cambridge,  to  be  returned 
to  Boston.  This  motion  was  lost  in  a  storm  of  protest  from 
Adams  and  others,  who  declared  that  a  request  based  only 
upon  inconvenience  waived  the  old  claim  of  sitting  at  Boston 
by  right .  On  the  same  day  Hutchinson  informed  the  mem¬ 
bers  that  he  was  now  permitted  to  convene  the  General 
Court  at  Boston,  provided  the  Assembly  would  recognize  the 
right  of  the  Crown  to  instruct  the  Governor  to  hold  the 
Court  at  such  places  as  the  Crown  might  designate,  and 
provided  also  that  their  request  to  be  returned  to  Boston 
were  based  merely  upon  the  greater  convenience  of  meeting 

144  Quoted  by  Barry,  op.  cit.,  II,  443. 

145  Journal,  1771-1772,  session  opened  April  8,  1772.  Hutchinson,  Massachu¬ 
setts,  III,  345.  Barry,  op.  cit.,  II,  444. 


210 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


in  that  place.  The  session  ended,  however,  with  the  con¬ 
troversy  still  in  progress.146 

Regarding  the  ordinary  public  business,  proceedings  were 
unusually  harmonious.  After  a  long  address  in  which  the 
Governor  carefully  traced  the  various  charter  grants,  showing 
that  the  issuance  of  royal  instructions  was  supported  by  that 
document,  and  that  the  King  had  undoubted  right  thus  to 
control  the  Governor,  he  dissolved  the  General  Court. 
And  to  inspire  greater  respect  for  the  King,  he  quoted  the 
following  expression  of  sentiment  from  the  Assembly  of  1728: 

It  is  not  reasonable  we  should  confide  in  any  Governor  what¬ 
soever  so  much  as  in  our  Gracious  King,  the  Common  father  of 
all  his  people  who  is  known  to  delight  in  nothing  so  much  as  in 
their  happiness.  And  whose  interest  and  glory,  and  that  of  his 
Royal  Progeny,  are  inseparable  from  the  prosperity  and  welfare 
of  his  people.  Whereas,  neither  the  prosperity  nor  adversity  of 
a  people  affect  a  Governor’s  interest  when  he  has  once  left  them.147 

After  the  election  in  1772,  the  first  proceeding  was  again 
a  protest  against  the  removal  from  Boston.  This  time,  how¬ 
ever,  the  message  simply  declared  it  an  “undue  Exercise” 
of  the  Governor’s  power,  and  declared  that  the  members 
“could  not,  without  the  greatest  Inconvenience,”  proceed 
to  business  in  Cambridge.  In  the  light  of  the  above  this 
seemed  like  a  surrender  to  Hutchinson  on  his  own  terms. 
In  a  very  few  days  he  adjourned  the  General  Court  to  Boston, 
upon  which  the  contest  ended.148 

For  the  future  the  Governor  looked  for  co-operation  and 
harmony,  but  the  salary  affair  wrecked  his  hopes.  Reversing 
the  tactics  of  former  years,  the  House,  instead  of  refusing 
the  salary,  insisted  upon  its  acceptance.  No  other  body, 
they  maintained,  possessed  the  right  of  payment;  and  settle- 

146  Journal ,  April  8,  1772,  p.  121.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  pp.  345jf., 
348. 

147  Journal,  April  25,  1772.  For  proceedings  cf.  ibid,.,  April  9  to  25,  pp.  119-187. 

148  Journal,  May  29  and  June  13,  1772,  pp.  11,  52. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  211 


ment  by  the  Crown  was  considered  an  infraction  of  the 
charter,  a  dangerous  innovation,  which  rendered  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  — 

Not  dependent  on  the  People,  as  the  Charter  has  prescribed; 
and  consequently  not,  in  that  Respect,  such  a  Governor  as  the 
People  consented  to  at  the  granting  thereof.  It  destroys  that 
mutual  Check  and  Dependence  which  each  branch  of  the  Legis¬ 
lature  ought  to  have  upon  the  others,  and  the  Balance  of  Power 
which  is  essential  to  all  free  Government.149 

And  concerning  whoever  was  responsible  for  advising  the 
King  in  this  matter  —  presumably  Hutchinson  —  they  ex¬ 
pressed  particular  disapproval,  declaring  the  advice  to  have 
been  founded  upon  false  information,  and  the  measure  itself 
a  rescinding  of  the  Assembly’s  just  rights,  the  “highest  In¬ 
dignity”  ever  inflicted.  About  the  same  time  Hutchinson 
sent  down  a  request  for  repairs  to  the  Governor’s  residence, 
which  was  reported  in  a  “ruinous  State.”  He  was  immedi¬ 
ately  informed  that  the  Governor’s  house  was  considered 
part  of  his  support,  and  that  as  soon  as  he  was  willing  to 
accept  his  whole  support  from  the  province,  then  the  Province 
House  would  be  made  “not  barely  tenable  but  elegant.”150 
A  recess  was  then  requested.  Hutchinson  replied  in  a  long 
address  outlining  the  constitutional  errors  in  the  Assembly’s 
view  of  the  salary  question,  and  contesting  in  particular  their 
interpretation  of  the  charter,  namely,  that  it  was  a  contract 
providing  for  appointment  of  the  Governor  by  the  Crown, 
and  for  his  support  by  the  Assembly.  Hutchinson  objected 
also  to  the  implied  assumption  that  the  Crown’s  appointing 
power  originated  in  the  charter.  The  charter,  he  said,  was 
not  as  a  treaty  between  independent  sovereignties,  but 
simply  a  number  of  privileges  which  the  Crown,  on  very 
urgent  request,  had  been  pleased  to  grant.  One  of  these 

149  Journal,  July  10,  1772,  p.  106. 

150  Journal ,  July  13  and  14,  1772,  pp.  117,  123. 


2U 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


privileges  conferred  upon  the  Assembly  the  right  to  support 
the  government  —  which  the  Assembly  now  interpreted  as 
excluding  the  right  of  support  by  any  other  power.  Hutchin¬ 
son  then  referred  to  the  right,  also  conferred  on  the  colonists 
by  the  charter,  to  defend  themselves,  and  added: 

If  you  are  in  Danger  of  being  attacked  by  a  foreign  Power, 
has  the  Crown  deprived  itself  of  the  Right  of  ordering  a  Fleet 
for  your  Defence,  and  must  the  Colony  be  lost  to  this  Power? 
And  would  you,  in  that  Case  refuse  this  Aid,  because  you  have 
an  exclusive  right  of  Defending  the  government  yourselves? 
Your  Charter  gives  you  equal  Right  to  this  Objection  in  the  Case 
of  Defence,  as  in  the  Case  of  Support.151 

This  presentation  of  the  King’s  case  was  later  upheld  by 
the  ministry.  After  the  address  Hutchinson  sent  down 
word  of  his  assent  to  twenty-six  acts,  and  his  disapproval  of 
three.  Successive  prorogations  followed;  therefore  the  next 
session  was  not  convened  until  Jan.  6,  1773. 152 

Soon  after  this,  further  disturbance  arose  when  the  judges 
accepted  their  support  from  the  Crown.  As  the  Assembly 
was  not  sitting,  a  Boston  town  meeting,  after  addressing  the 
Governor  in  order  to  verify  this  fact,  requested  him  not  to 
prorogue  the  General  Court  beyond  the  date  then  set  for 
the  next  meeting.  Upon  his  refusal  to  make  any  promises 
it  was  decided  that  the  people,  of  themselves,  had  the  right 
to  present  to  the  King  their  grievances.  Therefore,  at  the 
suggestion  of  Samuel  Adams,  they  drew  up  a  declaration  of 
rights  in  which  many  towns  included  special  memorials.153 

151  Journal,  July  14,  1772,  p.  129.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  359. 

162  Dartmouth  to  Hutchinson,  Sept.  2,  1772,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2571. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  231-234.  Journal,  1772-1773,  pp.  133/. 

163  Date  of  town  meeting,  Oct.  28,  1772.  Assembly  then  stood  prorogued  to 
December  2.  Cf.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  362/.  Excerpts  from  the  town 
memorials  referred  to  above  are  given  in  Barry,  op.  cit.,  II,  450-458. 

Plymouth,  Marblehead,  Salem,  and  Roxbury  are  mentioned  in  letter  from 
Dartmouth  to  Hutchinson,  Feb.  3  and  March  31,  1773,  Transcripts,  sup.  cit.,  pp. 
2583/.,  2588.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  247-251,  254,  255. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  213 


According  to  Hutchinson  the  advocates  of  these  measures 
were  “neither  respectable  from  their  Number  or  Character.” 
Nevertheless  in  the  proceedings  he  read  signs  of  a  complete 
break  with  England;  and  hesitating  between  calling  an 
Assembly  and  seeing  it  superseded  by  such  meetings,  he 
finally,  earlier  than  he  had  planned,  convened  the  members 
on  Jan.  6,  1773.  Then,  for  the  first  time,  he  referred  to 
the  controversy  that  had  long  been  raging  over  the  extent 
of  the  authority  of  Parliament,  explaining  that  in  one  and 
the  same  state  two  supreme  civil  authorities  could  not  co¬ 
exist,  and  recommending  concerning  this  fact  and  its  impli¬ 
cations  serious  consideration.154  This  was  practically  a  re¬ 
statement  by  Hutchinson  of  the  principles  of  government 
and  authority  as  expressed  a  short  time  previous  in  a  letter 
to  him  from  Dartmouth  on  the  subject  of  relations  between 
the  mother  country  and  the  colonies: 

Nice  distinctions  of  Civil  Rights  and  legal  Constitutions  are 
far  above  the  reach  of  the  Bulk  of  Mankind  to  comprehend;  but 
there  are  a  few  simple  and  fundamental  principles  of  Govern¬ 
ment  which  carry  within  themselves  such  Evidence  as  cannot  be 
resisted,  and  are  no  sooner  proposed  than  assented  to:  That  in 
every  Society  there  must  be  somewhere  a  supreme  uncontrollable 
Power,  an  absolute  authority  to  decide  and  determine;  That 
wherever  such  Power  is  found,  there  is,  of  necessity,  Independent 
Sovereignty;  That  legal  subjection  to  legal  Government  is  essen¬ 
tial  to  legal  Freedom;  and  that  the  Welfare,  and  happiness  of  all 
depend  upon  the  punctual  and  regular  Discharge  of  the  Duties 
of  each.  .  .  .155 

To  the  Governor’s  embodiment  of  these  principles  in  the 
above  mentioned  address,  the  House  replied  that  while  in 
the  Crown  was  vested  the  sole  right  to  make  grants  of 

154  Journal,  Jan.  6,  1773,  pp.  137jf.  Cf.  Daniel  Webster’s  Reply  to  Hayne 
on  Nullification. 

165  Dartmouth  to  Hutchinson,  Dec.  9,  1772,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2579. 
P.  R.  0.,  C.  0.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  237-244. 


214 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


American  territory,  it  was  nevertheless  true  that  by  the 
charter  there  was  conferred  upon  the  settlers  thereof  “all 
these  Powers  necessary  to  constitute  them  free  and  distinct 
States/’  The  argument  then  went  on  to  prove  their  sub¬ 
jection,  not  to  Parliament,  but  to  the  Crown,  partly  on  the 
grounds  that  Massachusetts  was  not  within  the  “Realm,” 
and  partly  through  appeal  to  precedents  in  which  the  rights 
of  Parliament  had  been  denied  or  questioned.  Mentioning 
also  the  intentions  of  original  settlers  expressly  to  escape  the 
ecclesiastical  laws  of  Parliament,  they  maintained  that  if 
no  lines  could  be  drawn  “Between  the  Supreme  Authority 
of  Parliament  and  the  total  Independence  of  the  Colonies, 
.  .  .  the  consequence  is,  either  that  the  Colonies  are  Vassals 
of  the  Parliament,  or  they  are  totally  independent.  And 
as  it  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been  the  intention  of  the 
Parties  in  the  Compact  that  one  of  them  should  be  reduced 
to  a  State  of  Vassalage,  the  Conclusion  is,  that  it  was  their 
Sense  that  we  were  thus  Independent.”  156  This,  the  longest 
address  hitherto  in  the  history  of  the  Assembly,  ended  with 
a  declaration  of  loyalty  to  the  King.  The  controversy  re¬ 
garding  the  authority  of  Parliament,  however,  went  on  in 
long  addresses  throughout  the  session.  One  of  the  points 
particularly  stressed  was  the  survival  of  principles  of  feudal¬ 
ism  as  a  method  of  land  tenure  and  of  civil  administration. 
Hutchinson  could  not  agree  to  the  Assembly’s  idea  of  loyalty 
to  the  Kings  of  England,  in  distinction  to  the  English  system, 
to  the  “person,  and  not  to  the  Body  Politick  of  the  King.”  157 

Simultaneously  with  this  controversy,  which  continued 
for  two  months,  the  matter  of  the  judges’  salaries  was  being 
contested.  When  Hutchinson  rejected  the  usual  appropria¬ 
tion  for  this  purpose,  the  House  became  incensed,  declaring 
that  support  from  the  Crown  would  place  the  judiciary  under 
an  undue  bias,  and  adding:  “We  are  more  and  more  con- 

156  Journal,  Jan.  26,  1773,  p.  224. 

167  Journal,  March,  1773,  p.  298;  cf.  also  pp.  178jf.,  229jf.,  268Jf.,  and  passim. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  215 


vinced  that  it  has  been  the  Design  of  Administration  totally 
to  subvert  the  Constitution,  and  introduce  an  arbitrary 
Government  into  this  Province:  And  we  cannot  wonder 
that  the  Apprehensions  of  this  People  are  thoroughly 
awakened/’ 158  Then,  in  order  to  influence  the  judges  into 
refusing  support  from  the  King,  their  salaries  were  raised, 
and,  instead  of  being,  as  formerly,  payable  only  after  services 
rendered,  were  payable  quarterly.  But  the  Governor  nega¬ 
tived  what  he  considered  to  be  resolves  unwarranted  by  any 
precedent.  After  another  address  of  vindication,  the  House 
was  driven  to  the  expedient  of  drawing  up  an  intimidating 
resolution  declaring  that  any  judge  who  accepted  salary  from 
the  King  “Will  discover  to  the  World  that  he  has  not  a  due 
Sense  of  the  Importance  of  an  Impartial  Administration  of 
Justice,  that  he  is  an  Enemy  to  the  Constitution,  and  has  it 
in  his  Heart  to  promote  the  Establishment  of  an  arbitrary 
Government  in  the  Province.”  159 

The  next  session  was  preceded  by  rumors  concerning  dis¬ 
closure  of  letters  written  by  the  Governor,  in  which  would 
be  divulged  secret  conspirings  against  the  liberty  of  the 
people.  The  letters  were  in  large  part  Hutchinson’s  com¬ 
munications  concerning  the  “Boston  Massacre,”  which 
through  the  agency  of  Benjamin  Franklin  had  for  several 
months  been  known  to  a  few  in  the  colony,  and  which  were 
produced  with  a  view  of  affecting  the  expected  election  of 
May,  1773.  In  this  session,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 
struggle  regarding  the  conflicting  rights  of  Parliament  and 
of  the  Assembly  was  becoming  more  acute,  there  were  thirty 
towns  that  returned  no  representatives.160  This  points  prob¬ 
ably  to  the  existence  of  a  strong  feeling  in  opposition  to  the 
agitators.  It  may,  however,  be  otherwise  explained.  Of  the 

168  Journal,  Feb.  12,  1773,  p.  224. 

169  Journal,  March  3,  1773,  p.  282;  cf.  also  ibid.,  Feb.  19  and  23,  pp.  196,  202, 
206,  208,  242/.,  248,  255,  261,  268-279. 

160  Journal,  May  29,  1773,  p.  18.  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  394/ 


216 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


eight  new  Councillors,  all  of  whom  were  members  of  the 
opposition,  Hutchinson  negatived  three,  including  John 
Adams,  and  would  have  refused  assent  to  the  choice  of  the 
remaining  five,  had  he  not  feared  by  such  action  to  prevent 
the  possibility  of  a  quorum.161 

The  first  public  business,  resultant  upon  a  motion  by 
Samuel  Adams,  was  the  almost  unanimous  adoption  of  a 
set  of  resolutions  providing  for  a  plan  of  union  among  the 
colonies,  and  for  the  distribution  to  all  speakers  of  a  circular 
letter  urging  adoption  of  the  Virginia  resolves,  and  the 
creation  of  a  standing  committee  of  correspondence.  To 
say  the  least,  these  proceedings  were  daring,  especially  the 
last  one,  which  was  unprecedented,  and  which  implied  both 
delegation  of  powers  from  one  chamber  only  and  the  au¬ 
thority  to  function  even  after  lapse  of  the  delegating  power. 
Moreover,  Hutchinson’s  presentation  of  the  royal  instruc¬ 
tions  prohibiting  committees  of  correspondence  were  refused 
consideration  until  he  could  present  together  with  them 
sufficient  reason  for  their  issuance.  He  was  also  informed 
that  the  Assembly,  when  not  in  session,  must  have  some 
means  of  protecting  the  people’s  rights,  and  of  correctly  in¬ 
forming  a  sovereign  who  was  receiving  distorted  and  false 
reports.162 

It  was  about  this  time  that  the  above  mentioned  exposure 
of  the  Hutchinson  letters  was  made  in  the  House.  These, 
which  were  chiefly  his  reports  on  the  “ Boston  Massacre” 
and  on  the  state  of  feeling  among  the  people,  were  soon 
printed,  in  spite  of  promises  to  the  contrary.  Nor  was  the 
Assembly  appeased  when  Hutchinson  reminded  them  that 
he  had  written  the  letters  long  before  he  was  made  Governor, 
and  that  they  were  of  a  purely  private  and  strictly  confi¬ 
dential  nature,  though  written  to  one  who  happened  to  be 
a  member  of  Parliament;  and  furthermore,  that  he  enter- 

161  Journal,  May  27,  1773,  p.  7.  Hutchinson,  ibid.,  p.  396. 

162  Journal,  May  28,  1773,  pp.  11/.;  Feb.  5,  1774,  p.  138. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  217 


tained  no  thoughts  of  4 ‘overthrowing  the  Constitution  or  of 
introducing  arbitrary  Power.”  163  The  House  in  a  series  of 
resolves  declared  that  he  had  no  right  thus  to  express  himself 
even  in  private  correspondence;  that  this  “confidential” 
method  was  resorted  to  in  order  to  prevent  knowledge  in 
the  colony  of  the  transactions;  also  that: 

The  Letters  signed  Tho.  Hutchinson,  considering  the  Person 
by  whom  they  were  wrote,  the  Matters  they  expressly  contain, 
the  express  Reference  in  some  of  them  for  “full  Inteligence”  to 
Mr.  Hallowel,  a  Person  deeply  interested  in  the  Measures  so  much 
complained  of,  and  recommendatory  Notices  of  divers  other  Per¬ 
sons  whose  Emoluments  arising  from  our  public  Burdens  might 
excite  them  to  unfavourable  Representations  of  us,  the  Measures 
they  suggest.  The  Temper  in  which  they  were  wrote,  the  Manner 
in  which  they  were  sent,  and  the  Person  to  whom  they  were 
addressed;  had  a  Natural  and  efficacious  Tendency  to  interupt 
and  alienate  the  affections  of  our  Most  Gracious  Sovereign  King 
George  the  Third,  from  this  his  loyal  and  affectionate  Province; 
to  destroy  that  Harmony  and  Good-Will  between  Great-Britain 
and  this  Colony,  which  every  Friend  to  either  would  wish  to 
establish  to  excite  the  Resentment  of  the  British  Administration 
against  this  Province;  to  defeat  the  Endeavors  of  our  Agents 
and  Friends  to  serve  us  by  a  fair  Representation  of  our  State 
of  Grievances;  to  prevent  our  humble  and  repeated  Petitions 
from  reaching  the  Royal  Ear  of  our  Common  Sovereign;  and  to 
produce  the  severe  and  destructive  Measures  which  have  been 
taken  against  this  Province,  and  others  still  more  so  which  have 
been  threatened.164 

In  the  same  resolves  also  the  Governor  and  Lieutenant- 
Governor  were  accused  of  having  favored  the  detested 
revenue  measures  for  the  reason  that  their  salaries  were 
being  paid  therefrom;  similarly  that  the  same  officials  had 
supported  the  introduction  of  the  military  in  order  to  pro- 

163  Journal ,  June  9,  1773,  p.  41;  cf.  also  p.  27. 

164  Journal,  June  16,  1773,  p.  58. 


218 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


tect  and  enforce  the  revenue,  thereby  further  insuring  the 
salary  grants.  As  a  consequence  Hutchinson  and  the  rest 
were  judged  “justly  chargeable,”  not  only  with  the  recent 
violent  demonstrations  in  the  colony,  but  also  with  “the 
great  Corruption  of  Morals  and  all  that  Confusion,  Misery 
and  Bloodshed,  which  have  been  the  Natural  Effect  of  the 
Introduction  of  the  troops.”  Then  followed  a  resolve  to 
petition  the  King  for  the  removal  of  both  the  Governor  and 
the  Lieutenant-Governor,  which  was  later  dismissed  by  the 
ministry  as  groundless.165 

By  co-relating  letters  on  the  Boston  Massacre  written  by 
Hutchinson  and  others,  although  each  was  written  at  different 
times,  and  without  the  knowledge  of  any  of  the  other  au¬ 
thors,  the  Assembly  was  able  to  make  it  appear  that  a 
“conspiracy”  had  been  deliberately  formed  against  the 
province  by  the  writers  mentioned.166  The  fact,  too,  that 
upon  advice  of  the  prudent  Franklin  there  were  first  circu¬ 
lated  rumors  of  very  terrible  things  done  by  those  in  au¬ 
thority,  soon  to  be  disclosed  in  letters  that  had  been  mys¬ 
teriously  procured,  served  greatly  to  heighten  the  popular 
alarm,  as  well  as  the  effect  of  the  letters  when  finally  pub¬ 
lished.167  Although  the  Governor  could  have  prevented  all 
this  by  ending  the  session,  he  hesitated  to  do  so,  fearing  the 
measure  might  be  construed  into  an  admission  of  the  charges 
preferred.168  Therefore,  notwithstanding  the  petition  for  his 
removal,  he  ignored  the  whole  affair.  Later,  however,  when 
resolutions  had  been  passed  for  impeachment  of  the  judges 
by  the  “Commons”  of  the  province  because  of  their  accept- 

165  Journal,  June  9,  1773,  p.  61.  The  Lieutenant-Governor  was  Andrew  Oliver, 
some  of  whose  letters  were  also  divulged.  Dartmouth  to  Hutchinson,  March  9, 
1774,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2620.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  285,  286. 

166  Journal,  June  15,  1773,  p.  56,  gives  list  of  six  authors. 

167  Letter  from  Franklin,  dated  London,  July  7,  1773.  Hutchinson,  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  III,  396.  This  letter  does  not  appear  in  Smyth’s  edition  of  The  Writings 
of  Benjamin  Franklin.  Cf.  Vol.  VI,  pp.  80 ff. 

168  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  406-411. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  219 


ance  of  the  King’s  salary  grants,  he  prorogued  the  General 
Court  until  the  following  September,  later  extending  the 
prorogation  until  Jan.  26,  1774.  This  apparently  yielding 
attitude  was  the  result  of  orders  from  the  ministry,  who 
advised  against  giving  too  great  prominence  to  the  dispute 
concerning  the  authority  of  Parliament  by  continuing  dis¬ 
cussion.169 

In  the  mean  time  occurred  the  Boston  Tea  Party,  with  the 
Governor  powerless  to  interfere;  the  House  and  Council 
both  arraigned  against  him;  the  judges,  justices,  sheriffs, 
constables,  and  even  the  military  officers  fearing,  through 
dread  of  public  censure,  to  enforce  or  to  punish  misdemeanors 
perpetrated  in  the  interests  of  the  new  liberty.  At  a  Boston 
town  meeting  that  decided  against  the  landing  of  the  tea, 
Hutchinson’s  proclamation  to  disperse  was  hissed  and  went 
unheeded.  His  repeated  summons  to  the  Council  brought 
them  together  only  after  three  days,  when  they  refused  to 
advise  any  restrictive  measures.170 

The  Governor  had  by  that  time  become  so  weary  of  his 
disturbed  administration  that,  like  his  predecessor,  he  re¬ 
quested  leave  to  return  to  England,  but  not,  however,  simply 
for  the  sake  of  evading  responsibilities.  On  the  contrary, 
his  uncompromising  loyalty  to  the  King  and  his  insistence 
upon  the  prerogative  and  the  authority  of  Parliament  were 
considered  by  the  ministry  to  be,  in  the  method  of  expression 
at  least,  even  too  strenuous  and  therefore  not  expedient.  As 
a  result  the  Lords  did  not  praise  him  for  what  they  regarded 
as  an  indiscreet  patriotism.  In  fact,  Dartmouth  informed 
Hutchinson  that  allowances  would  be  made  for  him  because 
of  his  well-known  zeal  for  the  interests  of  the  Crown.171  To 

169  Journal,  June  28  and  29,  1773,  p.  98;  ibid.,  Jan.  26,  1774,  p.  100.  Dartmouth, 
to  Hutchinson,  April  10,  1773,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2591.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5, 
Vol.  7G5,  pp.  256-258. 

170  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  432,  438. 

171  Dartmouth  to  Hutchinson,  Aug.  4,  1773,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2604. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  0.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  265-267. 


\ 


220 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  loyal  old  man,  this  treatment  must  have  come  as  shock, 
and  may  have  quickened  his  desire  to  appear  in  England  to 
vindicate  his  position. 

When  the  next  session  opened  in  January,  1774,  Hutchin¬ 
son,  following  probably  the  above  mentioned  advices  from 
England,  made  no  mention  of  the  abuses  of  the  preceding 
summer.  Immediately  the  House  proceeded  to  the  question 
of  the  judges’  salaries.  One  had  already  accepted  payment 
from  the  King;  the  other  four  were  yet  undecided,  and  were 
accordingly  allowed  six  days  for  consideration.  Finally,  when 
all  except  the  Chief  Justice,  Oliver,  yielded  and  accepted 
the  Assembly’s  grants,  Hutchinson  was  twice  petitioned  for 
Oliver’s  removal  from  office,  but  in  vain.172  Because  of  the 
uncompromising  stand  taken  by  the  Chief  Justice,  Oliver, 
the  House  instituted  impeachment  proceedings  to  effect  the 
removal  that  had  been  refused  by  the  Governor.  WThen 
Hutchinson,  denying  jurisdiction,  had  referred  to  the  courts 
the  question  of  removal,  the  House,  on  the  instigation  of 
Samuel  Adams,  maintained  that  the  proper  court  was  the 
Governor  and  Council.  And  when  the  Governor  still  refused 
to  take  part,  or  even  to  be  present,  Adams  nevertheless 
addressed  the  Council  with  the  words:  “May  it  please  Your 
Excellency  and  the  honorable  Council.”  To  the  objection 
that  the  Governor  was  absent,  Adams  declared  that  he  was 
“presumed”  to  be  present,  and  the  report  was  accordingly 
made  to  the  House  of  Judge  Oliver’s  impeachment  before 
the  Governor  and  Council.  When  all  the  efforts  of  the  mem¬ 
bers  availed  nothing  they  determined  to  continue  the 
subject  in  the  next  session,  and  resolved  that  “it  must  be 
presumed  that  the  Governor’s  refusing  to  take  any  Measures 

172  Journal,  Jan.  26  and  Feb.  1,  2,  7,  11,  15,  18,  and  22,  1774,  pp.  102jf.,  113, 
117,  118,  (gives  names  of  other  four  judges)  150,  159,  173,  182.  Ibid.,  Feb. 

7,  1774,  pp.  134/f.  Oliver  fearlessly  informed  the  Assembly  that  for  seventeen  years 
he  had  been  awaiting  an  adequate  salary;  that  by  reason  of  his  office  he  had  lost 
over  £3,000  sterling,  and  that  therefore  at  this  late  date  he  could  hardly  be  ex¬ 
pected  to  accept  the  Assembly’s  offer. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  221 


therein  is,  because  he  also  receives  his  Support  from  the 
Crown.”  173 

Consequent  upon  the  antagonisms  aroused  by  these  pro¬ 
ceedings,  the  House  paid  no  heed  to  Hutchinson’s  recom¬ 
mendation  to  hasten  the  regular  business  of  the  session  in 
view  of  his  expected  departure  for  England.  Finally,  by 
reason  of  the  failure  of  his  attempts  amicably  to  compose 
difficulties,  the  fruitlessness  of  his  “passing  without  Notice 
the  groundless,  unkind  and  illiberal  Charges  and  Insinua¬ 
tions”  against  him,  and  because  their  “Votes,  Resolves  and 
other  Proceedings”  struck  “directly  at  the  Honour  and 
Authority  of  the  King  and  of  the  Parliament,”  Hutchinson 
ordered  a  prorogation.  The  House,  learning  that  the  message 
was  being  read  in  the  Council,  barred  its  doors  and  prevented 
delivery  until  the  members  had  arranged  a  bill  for  their  pay, 
adopted  resolves  concerning  Oliver’s  unfitness,  and  author¬ 
ized  a  committee  of  correspondence.174 

Before  the  time  for  convening  the  next  session,  Governor 
Hutchinson  was  superseded  by  General  Gage,  who  took 
over  the  government  on  May  17,  1774,  receiving  upon  his 
arrival  the  usual  honorable  reception.  On  the  whole,  Gage’s 
instructions  were  the  same  as  those  of  his  predecessors,  pro¬ 
hibiting  support  of  the  government  by  votes  or  resolves 
instead  of  acts,  limiting  the  Assembly’s  long-claimed  powers 
over  expenditures,  forbidding  discrimination  against  British 
ships  by  lowering  of  duties  for  natives,  also  the  practice  of 
taxing  the  salaries  of  the  Customs  Commissioners,  and  so 
on  in  the  usual  trend.175 

* 

173  Journal,  Feb.  24,  25,  and  26  and  March  9,  1774,  pp.  194^.,  202jf.,  205,  241. 
Hutchinson,  Massachusetts,  III,  442-448.  Charges  against  Oliver:  accepting 
salary  from  Crown;  complaining  of  inadequacy  of  Assembly’s  former  grants, 
which  was  interpreted  as  “  ungratefully,  falsely,  maliciously  labouring  to  lay 
imputation  and  scandal  upon  his  majesty’s  government.” 

174  Journal,  Feb.  25  and  March  8,  1774,  pp.  202,  241,  243.  Hutchinson,  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  III,  474.  Barry,  Massachusetts,  II,  414,  449. 

176  Instruction  to  Thomas  Gage,  April  5,  1774,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  2625- 
2649.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  298-307.  C.  M.  Andrews,  op,  cit.,  p.  402. 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


cycyc) 

Certain  additional  instructions  to  Gage,  however,  imme¬ 
diately  occasioned  conflict.  These  directed  him  to  close 
Boston  Harbor,  thus  depriving  that  town  of  its  advantage 
as  a  port;  also  to  remove  the  General  Court  to  Salem,  and 
to  take  special  measures  to  effect  the  apprehension  and 
punishment  of  all  subverters  of  government,  with  particular 
care  to  keep  them  out  of  the  Council.176 

The  first  enforcement  of  the  Port  Bill  resulted  ominously 
in  a  day  of  prayer;  and  Gage’s  rejection,  after  the  May 
election,  1774,  of  thirteen  Councillors,  together  with  the 
removal  of  the  General  Court  to  Salem,  decided  the  hostile 
attitude  of  the  House.  His  opening  address  made  but  one 
recommendation,  urging  provision  for  supply  of  the  treas¬ 
ury.  Immediately,  however,  the  House  proceeded  to  a  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  instructions  directing  removal  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Court  to  Salem,  and  made  their  protest  in  this  regard 
the  chief  business  of  the  short  session.  The  removal  was 
considered  4  4  an  Act  design’d  to  suppress  the  Spirit  of  Liberty 
in  America,”  “an  unprecedented  Act  of  the  British  Parlia¬ 
ment  for  shutting  up  the  Port  of  Boston,  and  otherwise 
punishing  the  Inhabitants  of  said  Town.”  It  was  resolved, 
therefore,  that  removal 4 4  at  any  Time  or  Place  unnecessarily, 
or  merely  in  Obedience  to  an  Instruction,”  was  manifestly 
inconsistent  with  both  letter  and  spirit  of  the  charter.  Some¬ 
what  later,  in  their  congratulatory  address  to  Gage  upon 
his  safe  arrival,  and  after  expressing  the  hope  that  the  new 
Governor  would  make  4 4  the  known  Constitution  and  the 
Charter  of  the  Province”  the  rule  of  his  administration, 
they  again  objected  to  the  removal,  protesting,  nevertheless, 
44  their  Loyalty  to  their  Sovereign,  their  Affection  for  the 
parent  Country,  as  well  as  their  invincible  Attachment  to 
their  just  Rights  and  Liberties.”  177 

176  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  April  9,  1774,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  2652-2658. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  298-307. 

177  Journal,  May  26  and  June  8  and  9,  1774.  (Italics  inserted.) 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  223 


In  the  mean  time  a  committee  had  been  considering  a 
report  to  the  House  on  the  4 ‘State  of  the  Province/’  After 
clearing  the  galleries  and  with  the  doors  shut,  the  report  was 
read,  suggesting: 

Meeting  of  committees  from  all  colonies  to  consult  upon  the 
present  State  of  the  Colonies  and  the  Miseries  to  which  they  are 
and  must  be  reduced  by  the  Operation  of  certain  Acts  of  Parlia¬ 
ment  respecting  America;  to  deliberate  and  determine  upon  wise 
and  proper  measures  to  be  recommended  to  all  the  Colonies,  for 
the  Recovery  and  Establishment  of  their  just  Rights  and  Privi¬ 
leges,  civil  and  religious,  and  the  Restoration  of  Union  and  Har¬ 
mony  between  Great  Britain  and  the  Colonies.178 

This  report  was  adopted  and  the  meeting  arranged  for 
Sept.  1,  1775.  A  list  of  the  Massachusetts  delegates  is 
given  below.179 

Owing  to  the  Boston  Port  Bill  also,  the  antagonism  in 
the  Governor’s  relations  with  the  Assembly  was  increased. 
This  measure  was  designed  by  England  as  punishment  of 
Boston  for  revolutionary  practices.  All  loading  and  un¬ 
loading  of  ships  was  1  o  cease,  and  the  embargo  was  to  con¬ 
tinue  until  “full  and  absolute  Submission”  should  be  made 
to  the  “Sovereignty  of  the  King  in  His  Parliament.”  Pend¬ 
ing  this  submission,  the  General  Court  was  to  sit  only  at 
Salem.  The  opinion  was  that  Gage’s  dual  civil  and  military 
power  would  afford  every  opportunity  of  enforcing  the  Bill. 
Yet  through  it  all  the  ministry  were  apparently  desirous  of 
being  as  lenient  as  the  circumstances  would  permit;  hence, 
by  “submission”  was  meant,  not  a  positive  declaration 
that  might  have  implied  self-humiliation  of  the  colony,  and 
which  would  therefore  never  have  been  effected,  but  simply 
payment  to  the  East  India  Company  of  the  value  of  the 

178  Journal ,  June  17,  1774. 

179  Hon.  James  Bowdoin,  Esq.,  Hon.  Thomas  Cushing,  Esq.  (speaker),  Mr. 
Samuel  Adams,  John  Adams,  Esq.,  Robert  Treat  Paine,  Esq. 


224 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


losses  sustained  in  the  tea  riots,  together  with  assurance 
from  Gage  that  the  King’s  duties  could  with  safety  be  col¬ 
lected  in  Boston.180 

This  Port  Bill  was  regarded  in  the  Assembly  as  an  “At¬ 
tack  upon  this  whole  Province  and  Continent,  which  threatens 
the  total  Destruction  of  the  Liberties  of  all  British  America.” 
In  solemn  exhortation  the  House  requested  the  people  of 
Boston  and  Charlestown  “to  endure  this  Oppression,  for  the 
Preservation  of  the  Liberties  of  their  Country  .  .  .  till  the 
Sense  and  Advice  of  our  Sister  Colonies  shall  be  known.”  181 
Close  upon  this  came  the  final  outbreak  of  the  expression  of 
their  grievances,  when  all  reserve  was  discarded  in  a  resolve 
that  might  almost  be  called  the  culmination  of  their  com¬ 
plaints,  —  the  last,  desperate  announcement  of  injuries  long 
endured  and  fruitlessly  opposed.  This  resolve  seems  to 
point  bach  to  difficulties  of  long  standing,  thus  giving  to  the 
subject  matter  of  this  study,  that  is,  the  struggles  be¬ 
tween  the  Assemblies  and  the  royal  Governors,  a  peculiar 
significance : 

Whereas,  this  and  his  Majesty’s  other  Colonies  in  North 
America  have  long  been  struggling  under  the  heavy  Hand  of 
Power;  and  our  dutiful  Petitions  for  the  Redress  of  intolerable 
Grievances,  have  not  only  been  disregarded  and  frown’d  upon, 
but  the  Design  totally  to  alter  the  free  Constitutions  of  Civil 
Government  in  British  America,  and  establish  arbitrary  Govern¬ 
ments,  and  reduce  the  Inhabitants  to  Slavery,  appears  more  and 
more  to  be  fixed  and  determined.  .  .  .182 

It  was  also  on  that  occasion  that  measures  were  adopted 
to  discourage  the  importation  and  use  of  goods  that  would 
benefit  Great  Britain.  And  the  Assembly,  finding  General 

180  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  April  9,  1774,  Transcripts ,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  2653,  2654. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  298-307.  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  July  6,  1774, 
Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  2678/f.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  331-333. 

181  Journal,  June  17,  1774. 

182  Journal,  p.  46. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  225 


Gage  inexorable  in  his  adherence  to  the  objectionable  regu¬ 
lations,  was  soon  meeting  in  secret  session,  deliberating  on 
a  union  of  the  colonies.  Gage  discovered  the  meeting  and 
immediately  ordered  the  General  Court  dissolved;  but  the 
House  denied  admission  to  the  messenger,  who  therefore 
read  the  proclamation  through  closed  doors,  while  the 
representatives  appointed  a  committee  to  meet  delegations 
from  the  other  colonies.183 

After  the  holding  of  a  new  election  in  September,  1774, 
the  next  General  Court  was  called  by  Gage  to  meet  at  Salem 
on  October  fifth.  But  in  view  of  the  “extraordinary  re¬ 
solves”  adopted  in  many  of  the  counties,  the  instructions 
to  the  representatives  from  Boston  and  other  towns,  and 
the  “disordered  and  unhappy  state  of  the  province,”  Gage 
decided  not  to  meet  the  new  Assembly  on  the  day  appointed. 
He  therefore  discharged  them  from  attendance,  postponing 
indefinitely  the  convening  of  the  General  Court.184  While 
many  of  the  towns  ignored  the  Governor’s  writ  by  electing 
their  representatives  to  a  provincial  congress  instead  of  to 
a  General  Court,  the  most  conservative  estimate  states  that 
notwithstanding  the  above  proclamation,  ninety  repre¬ 
sentatives  gathered  at  Salem  on  October  fifth  and  awaited 
the  arrival  of  the  Governor  or  of  other  constitutional  officer. 
The  executive  failing  to  appear,  a  convention  was  organized 
on  October  sixth,  of  which  John  Hancock  was  chosen  chair¬ 
man.  A  committee  was  then  appointed  to  report  on  the 
proclamation  and  to  consider  measures  to  be  adopted. 
This  resulted  in  a  resolve  that  declared  the  Governor’s 
proclamation  in  postponement  of  the  meeting  to  be  ‘‘uncon¬ 
stitutional,  unjust,  and  disrespectful  to  the  province.” 
In  general  the  resolve  maintained  that  the  Governor  could 
not  legally  employ  his  power  to  dissolve,  prorogue,  etc.,  until 

183  Barry,  Massachusetts ,  II,  486jf.  Journal,  June  17,  1774,  p.  47. 

184  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress  of  Massachusetts,  pp.  3jf.,  gives  the 
Governor’s  proclamation. 


226 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  General  Court  that  had  already  been  lawfully  summoned 
was  actually  convened.  His  insinuations  regarding  dis¬ 
orders  in  the  province  were  deemed  a  “reflection  upon  the 
inhabitants ;”  and  the  proclamation  was  disrespectful  because 
issued  so  very  shortly  before  the  expected  convening  of  the 
General  Court.  It  was  declared  also  that  the  very  grounds 
o  his  refusal  to  convene  the  Court  constituted  the  most 
urgent  reason  for  calling  a  meeting,  in  order  that  the 
province  through  its  representatives  might  take  proper 
remedial  measures.  The  conclusion  was  an  argument  of  the 
Governor's  “disaffection  toward  the  province,”  and  of  the 
necessity  of  “most  vigorous  and  immediate  exertions  for 
preserving  the  freedom  and  constitution  thereof.”  185  Then 
there  was  formed  among  the  delegates  a  “Provincial  Con¬ 
gress,  to  be  joined  by  such  other  persons  as  have  been  or 
shall  be  chosen  for  that  purpose,  to  take  into  consideration 
the  dangerous  and  alarming  situation  of  public  affairs  in 
this  province,  and  to  consult  and  determine  on  such  meas¬ 
ures  as  they  shall  judge  will  tend  to  promote  the  true  inter¬ 
ests  of  his  majesty,  and  the  peace  welfare,  and  prosperity 
of  the  province.”  186 

There  were  other  troubles  during  the  administration  of 
Governor  Gage.  Parliament,  as  a  result  of  its  deliberations 
on  the  state  of  the  colonies,  had  passed  an  act  for  the  better 
regulation  of  Massachusetts  by  which  there  was  taken  from 
the  Assembly  its  ancient  privilege  of  electing  the  members 
of  the  Council.  This  body  was  now  placed  under  the  ap¬ 
pointing  power  of  the  King.  The  home  government  was  ap¬ 
parently  carrying  out  its  determination  to  crush  the  spirit 
of  the  rebellion.  One  of  the  secretaries  of  state,  in  reference 

185  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress  of  Massachusetts,  p.  4,  note.  Other 
estimates  place  the  number  of  representatives  at  208  and  288;  cf.  also  ibid,.,  Oct.  7, 
1774,  pp.  5jf. 

186  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress  of  Massachusetts,  pp.  5ff.  There  were 
three  such  Provincial  Congresses,  each  elected,  functioning,  and  being  dissolved 
as  far  as  possible  after  the  manner  of  the  General  Court. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  227 


to  the  general  disorders,  and  in  particular  to  the  “extrav¬ 
agant  Proceeding”  and  “unwarrantable  Assumption  of 
Power,”  wrote  to  Gage  as  follows: 

To  what  further  extravagance  the  People  may  be  driven  it  is 
difficult  to  say.  Whatever  Violences  are  committed  must  be 
resisted  with  firmness;  the  Constitutional  Authority  of  this  King¬ 
dom  over  its  Colonies  must  be  vindicated,  &  its  Laws  obeyed 
throughout  the  whole  Empire. 

It  is  not  only  its  Dignity  and  Reputation,  but  its  Power  nay 
its  very  Existence  depends  upon  the  present  Moment;  for  should 
these  Ideas  of  Independence,  which  some  dangerous  and  ill-de¬ 
signing  Persons  here  are  artfully  endeavoring  to  instill  into  the 
minds  of  the  King’s  American  Subjects  once  take  root,  that  rela¬ 
tion  between  this  Kingdom  &  its  Colonies,  which  is  the  Bond 
of  Peace  and  Power,  will  soon  cease  to  exist,  and  Destruction 
must  follow  Disunion.187 

In  accordance  with  the  above  mentioned  policy  and  the 
change  in  the  Massachusetts  charter,  there  were  sent  to  the 
Governor  the  names  of  thirty-six  Councillors.  The  expecta¬ 
tions  of  the  ministry  that  many  of  these  nominees  would 
probably  decline  to  accept  office  were  well  founded.  And 
twenty -four  who  did  accept  were  soon  compelled  to  resign,  or 
to  repair  for  protection  to  the  regulars  in  Boston.  Although 
a  quorum  yet  remained,  the  “phrenzy”  of  the  people  was 
still  so  violent  that  even  the  presence  of  additional  military 
power  failed  to  instill  respect  for  the  civil  government; 
and  as  a  result  the  authority  of  the  Council,  as  long  as  it 
could  function  only  “in  the  midst  of  a  camp,  and  under  the 
protection  of  an  army,”  was  regarded  by  the  ministry  as 
of  no  avail.  These  “mandamus  counsellors”  who  had 
accepted  office  were  allowed  by  a  resolve  of  the  Provincial 
Congress  ten  days  in  which  publicly  to  acknowledge  their 

187  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  June  3,  1774,  Transcripts ,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2668.  P.  R.  O., 
C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  312-320;  cf.  also  additional  instructions  to  Gage,  ibid., 
pp.  2671/.  P.  R.  0.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  321-326. 


228 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


“misconduct.”  In  the  event  of  refusal,  their  names  were  to 
be  “published  repeatedly”  and  entered  upon  town  records 
as  “infamous  betrayers  of  their  country”  and  “rebels 
against  the  state.”  188 

Gage  was  about  this  time  forced  to  write  that  he  was  un¬ 
able  in  America  to  collect  a  force  sufficiently  large  to  handle 
the  situation.  This  fact  was  “very  embarrassing”  to  Eng¬ 
land,  for  Dartmouth  unwillingly  admitted  that  for  the 
present  no  more  troops  could  be  spared  from  Great  Britain, 
while  “considerations  of  general  safety”  forbade  the  sending 
of  any  from  more  distant  garrisons.  The  49th  and  63d 
regiments  in  Ireland  were  the  only  possibilities,  but  even 
these  would  have  to  delay  embarkation  until  the  following 
spring,  that  is,  the  spring  of  1775.  Perhaps  had  they 
sooner  arrived,  the  “eighteenth  of  April,  ‘seventy  five’,” 
would  not  now  be  so  memorable  a  verse.  At  that  time  the 
most  that  could  be  done  was  to  send  three  guard  ships,  the 
Boyne,  Somerset,  and  Asia,  with  as  many  additional  men 
as  possible.  In  all  these  amounted  to  about  six  hundred. 
Disarming  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and 
Connecticut  was  also  suggested.  In  a  circular  letter  to  the 
Governors,  stringent  measures  were  urged  to  prevent  the 
importation  of  arms  and  ammunition.189 

In  the  place  of  their  General  Court,  which  had  been  dis¬ 
solved  by  the  military  Governor  in  June,  1774,  the  people, 
desiring  some  instrument  for  the  expression  and  protection 
of  their  sentiments,  had  substituted  a  Provincial  Congress, 
which,  in  spite  of  the  Governor’s  proclamation  to  disperse, 
frequently  met,  arranged  committees  of  correspondence, 
and  continued  systematized  preparations  for  resistance  to 

188  Barry,  Massachusetts,  II,  486jf.  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress  of 
Massachusetts  in  177 4.  and  1775,  pp.  24jf.  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  Oct.  17,  1774, 
Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2688.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  342-346. 

189  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  2689#'.;  cf.  also  ibid.,  Oct.  19, 
1774,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2692.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  346,  347. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  229 


any  encroachments  upon  the  ideal  of  liberty  that  had  by 
this  time  evolved.190  After  the  embers  of  rebellion  had 
burst  into  flame  at  tidings  of  Lexington  and  Concord,  the 
authority  of  the  royal  Governor  in  Massachusetts  came  to 
an  end.  The  story  of  his  relations  with  the  representatives 
of  the  people,  however,  is  not  yet  concluded. 

In  December,  1774,  all  the  Governors  received  copies  of 
the  King’s  declaration  of  his  determination  “to  withstand 
every  Attempt  to  weaken  or  impair  the  Authority  of  the 
Supreme  Legislature  over  all  His  Majesty’s  Dominions,” 
and  of  the  resolutions  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament  “to 
support  those  Great  Constitutional  Principles  by  which 
His  Majesty’s  Conduct  hath  been  governed.”  191  In  the 
following  month,  January,  1775,  Governor  Gage  was 
directed  to  prevent,  if  possible,  any  appointment  from  Mas¬ 
sachusetts  of  delegates  to  the  proposed  second  congress  to 
meet  in  Philadelphia  on  May  10,  1775. 192  So  serious  had 
the  situation  become,  that  General  Gage  suggested  that  the 
only  means  of  restoring  normal  conditions  would  be  through 
military  conquest  of  the  three  most  refractory  governments, 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island.  For  this 
purpose  he  judged  that  20,000  men  would  be  required. 
England,  however,  was  not  in  a  position  to  send  that  num¬ 
ber,  nor  were  the  ministry  as  yet  fully  convinced  of  the 
necessity.  Dartmouth  in  particular  chose  to  regard  the 
violent  and  armed  demonstrations  in  Massachusetts  as  the 
“acts  of  a  rude  rabble,  without  plan,  without  concert,  and 
without  conduct.”  He  suggested  as  one  means  of  destroy¬ 
ing  the  rebellion  that  a  sudden  secret  sortie  be  made  upon 
the  next  provincial  assembly,  and  the  leaders  arrested. 

190  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress  in  Massachusetts  in  177 and  1775, 
pp.  3/. 

191  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  Dec.  10,  1774,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2697.  P.  R.  O., 
C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  242,  pp.  23,  24. 

192  Ibid.,  Jan.  4,  1775,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2698.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol. 
76,  pp.  1,  2. 


230 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


To  him  such  meetings  appeared  “in  every  light  to  be  acts 
of  Treason  and  Rebellion,”  but  he  had  little  hope  of  eventual 
judicial  conviction  in  case  the  proposed  arrests  were  accom¬ 
plished.  Dartmouth  also  ordered  Gage  to  prevent  all 
gatherings  of  the  town  guard  or  of  the  militia,  and  forbade 
him  to  grant  further  permissions  to  drill  and  train  in  Faneuil 
Hall.  While  the  actual  employment  of  military  force  was 
still  discountenanced,  except  under  absolute  necessity,  ar¬ 
rangements  nevertheless  were  then  being  made  in  Eng¬ 
land  to  reinforce  the  troops  under  Gage’s  command  by 
sending  a  force  of  about  4,000  men.  In  addition  there 
were  ordered  from  Ireland  a  detachment  of  700  marines, 
three  regiments  of  infantry,  and  one  of  light  dragoons. 
Others  also  were  to  be  raised  in  America,  where  all  avail¬ 
able  military  stores  and  ammunition  were  to  be  secured 
against  seizure  by  the  colonists.  Early  in  1775  provision 
was  made  that  in  case  of  necessity  the  22d,  40th,  and  45th 
regiments  from  Ireland  should  also  embark  for  Boston; 
and  at  the  same  time  Major-Generals  Howe,  Clinton,  and 
Burgoyne  were  ordered  on  service  in  the  colonies.193 

During  the  same  period  Parliament  was  taking  steps  to 
ameliorate  the  strained  relations  by  considerations  of  over¬ 
tures  that  implied  acceptance  by  England  of  almost  any 
reasonable  terms.  The  chief  anxiety  of  the  home  govern¬ 
ment  seemed  to  be  for  peaceful  reconciliation  rather  than 
forceful  subjection.  Very  reluctantly  force  was  decided 
upon,  but  it  was  to  be  employed  only  as  a  last  expedient. 
Gage  was  soon  to  have  at  his  disposal  six  additional  regi¬ 
ments,  four  from  Ireland  and  one  from  Quebec,  also  the 
remnant  of  the  tro'ops  stationed  at  St.  Augustine.194 

These  efforts  for  reconciliation  were  evident  chiefly  in  a 

193  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  Jan.  24  and  Feb.  22,  1775,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc., 
pp.  2699-2706,  2709,  2711.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  239-365,  368-373. 

194  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  Feb.  22,  as  sup.  cit.,  and  March  3,  1775,  Transcripts, 
Col.  Soc.,  pp.  2714-2717.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  242,  pp.  64-70;  also, 
Dartmouth  to  Gage,  March  3,  1775,  Transcripts,  sup.  cit.,  p.  2713. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  231 


resolution  adopted  by  the  House  of  Commons  and  approved 
by  the  King,  in  which  was  stated  that  all  difficulties  could 
be  cleared  if  the  individual  colonies  would  contribute  ade¬ 
quately  to  the  support  of  their  governments,  and  to  the 
common  defense  of  the  Empire.  The  latter  exaction  seemed 
but  just  in  consideration  of  the  Empire’s  contributions  in 
men,  money,  and  ships,  etc.,  to  the  defense  and  well  being  of 
the  colonies.  No  definite  amounts  were  stipulated.  This, 
as  well  as  the  method  of  contributing,  was  left  to  the  colonies 
to  determine,  Parliament  reserving  only  discretionary  power 
of  approval  or  disapproval.  This  resolution  was  intended  to 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Assembly,  but  Gage  was 
directed  “for  very  obvious  reasons”  not  to  make  official 
communication  of  its  content.  He  was  also  informed  that 
its  success  would  depend  in  very  large  measure  on  his  own 
prudence  in  properly  explaining  its  implications;  nor  was 
any  stone  to  be  left  unturned  that  might  win  compliance  by 
the  members.195  In  April,  1775,  word  was  sent  to  General 
Gage  of  the  King’s  approval  of  the  Parliamentary  limitation 
of  New  England  trade  to  the  possessions  of  the  Empire.  In 
the  same  month  circular  letters  informed  the  colonial  Gov¬ 
ernors  of  the  transfer  of  their  military  authority  to  the  officers 
recently  appointed  from  England.196  Gage  was  ordered  to 
secure  all  forts  and  garrisons  that  were  not  yet  in  the  control 
of  the  regulars;  and  his  suggestion  of  the  preceding  January 
that  the  best  means  of  combating  the  rebellion  would  be 
by  seizure  of  the  leaders,  followed  by  proclamation  of  general 
pardon  to  the  other  participants,  was  now  approved.  Special 
mention  was  made  of  the  president  and  secretary  of  the 
Provincial  Congress.  And  if  forcible  proceedings  became 
necessary,  the  Governor  was  not  to  hesitate,  remembering, 
however,  “Principles  of  Prudence,  discretion,  and  Hu- 

195  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  March  3,  1775,  Transcripts,  sup.  cit.,  pp.  2713,  2718. 

ice  rf.  Pownal  to  Gage,  April  5,  1775,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  2719.  P.  R.  O., 
C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  242,  p.  78;  cf.  also  ibid.,  p.  2721.  Letter  dated  April  15,  1775. 


232 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


inanity.”  This  advice  was  urged  in  consequence  of  Gage’s 
more  recent  reports  of  evidences  of  a  weakening  in  the  spirit 
of  resistance.  The  Governor  was  also  directed  to  effect  the 
arrest  of  the  prominent  members  who  had  attended  the 
Provincial  Congress  of  the  preceding  December.197  With 
the  ignition,  however,  at  Lexington  and  Concord  of  the 
embers  of  rebellion,  there  was  established  a  virtual  state  of 
war,  and  henceforth  in  the  estimation  of  the  colonists  Gov¬ 
ernor  Gage  was  regarded  as  the  commander  of  an  invading 
army  rather  than  as  royal  Governor  of  the  King’s  province. 
Through  the  activity  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  news  of 
the  Concord  episode,  with  colonial  colorings,  was  popularly 
known  in  England  before  the  ministry  were  officially  ac¬ 
quainted  with  its  details  by  Governor  Gage.  The  general 
effect  may  be  gathered  in  the  following  from  Dartmouth: 

From  the  moment  this  blow  was  struck  and  the  Town  of  Boston 
invested  by  the  Rebels,  there  was  no  longer  any  room  to  doubt 
of  the  intention  of  the  people  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  to  commit 
themselves  in  open  Rebellion.  The  other  three  New  England 
Governments  have  taken  the  same  part,  &  in  fact  all  North 
America  (Quebec,  Nova  Scotia  &  the  Floridas  excepted)  is  in 
arms  against  Great  Britain,  &  the  people  involved  in  the  guilt  of 
levying  war  against  The  King  in  every  sense  of  the  expression.198 

The  same  letter  gave  evidence,  however,  that  even  yet 
there  was  fostered  hope  as  to  good  results  from  the  remedial 
measures  above  referred  to,  especially  in  connection  with  the 
middle  colonies.  Nevertheless,  all  necessary  measures  in  the 
way  of  force  were  to  be  looked  to,  and  preparations  were 
made  to  reinforce  General  Gage  in  the  following  year,  when 
the  sending  of  troops  would  be  more  expedient.199  Thence¬ 
forth  the  office  of  royal  Governor  in  Massachusetts  existed 

197  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  April  15,  1775,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  2722-2732. 
P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5,  Vol.  765,  pp.  376-399. 

198  Dartmouth  to  Gage,  June  1,  1775,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  pp.  2738,  2739. 

199  Ibid.,  p.  2741. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  233 


only  in  name,  while  the  General  Court  with  its  Assembly 
had  long  since  ceased  to  function  as  a  branch  of  the  English 
colonial  administrative  system.  In  place  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  or  popular  branch  of  the  General  Court 
there  had  been  substituted,  as  above  narrated,  a  Provincial 
Congress,  legally  elected  to  sit  as  a  lawful  body,  but  pre¬ 
ferring,  after  the  Governor’s  proclamation  discharging  the 
members  from  attendance,  to  sit  as  a  self -constituted  and 
organized  extra-legal  medium  for  expressing  and  maintaining 
the  rights  of  their  constituents.  These  delegates  explained 
in  an  address  to  Governor  Gage  that  the  distressed  situation 
of  the  province,  together  with  the  “want  of  a  General  As¬ 
sembly,”  had  made  it  indispensably  necessary  44 to  collect 
the  wisdom  of  the  province  by  their  delegates  in  this  Congress 
to  concert  some  adequate  remedy  for  preventing  impending 
ruin,  and  providing  for  the  public  safety.”  The  Governor’s 
4 4 hostile  preparations”  were  regarded  as  provocative  of 
civil  war,  and  there  was  ample  reason  for  the  44  astonishment 
of  all  mankind”  in  beholding  such  measures  adopted  against 
a  people  4 4  whose  love  of  order,  attachment  to  Britain,  and 
loyalty  to  their  prince  ”  had  ever  been  most  exemplary.  In 
their  estimation  the  powers  of  government,  when  employed, 
not  for  protection  of  the  people,  but  to  44 harass,  distress  or 
enslave,”  were  a  44 curse  rather  than  a  blessing.”  Then  fol¬ 
lowed  further  objection  to  the  Port  Bill,  to  the  changes  in 
the  charter  and  in  the  administration  of  justice,  and  to  the 
daily  increasing  numbers  of  troops,  with  special  reference 
to  “that  brand  of  contention,  the  fortress  at  the  entrance 
of  Boston.”  200 

Gage’s  reply  was  addressed  to  the  gentlemen  who  were 
44  said  to  be  a  committee  to  wait  upon  his  excellency.”  The 
fortress,  44 unless  annoyed,  would  annoy  nobody.”  No  one 
was  more  desirous  of  harmony  than  he  himself;  yet  the 

200  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress  of  Massachusetts  in  177 /+  and  1775 , 

Oct.  13,  1774,  pp.  17/. 


234 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


colonists  could  not  deny  that  open  disobedience  implied 
defiance  of  England,  thus  making  harmony  impossible.  He 
noted  also  that  their  very  assemblages  in  the  so-called 
Provincial  Congresses  were  in  subversion  of  the  charter  that 
they  professed  so  greatly  to  revere.  Issuing  warning,  there¬ 
fore,  of  the  danger  in  “such  illegal  and  unconstitutional  pro¬ 
ceedings,”  he  would  give  no  further  satisfaction.201 

Pending  reply  the  Congress  ordered  a  day  of  thanksgiving 
for  the  “union  which  so  remarkably  prevails,  not  only  in 
this  province,  but  throughout  the  continent  at  this  alarming 
crisis.”  And  with  this  was  entered  the  rather  contradictory 
order  for  prayer  for  union  of  the  colonies  with  Great  Britain, 
after  which  the  Congress  immediately  proceeded  to  determine 
the  proper  time  for  securing  arms,  ammunition,  military 
stores,  etc.,  and  it  was  decided  that  “ now  was  the  proper 
time.”  202  There  was  expediency  in  these  proceedings,  but 
not  a  great  deal  of  logic.  For  the  purpose  of  military  equip¬ 
ment,  funds  were  then  voted  amounting  to  over  £20,000,  and 
there  was  elected  a  commander-in-chief,  a  receiver-general, 
and  a  committee  to  act  during  adjournment  of  the  Congress; 
provision  was  made  for  equal  representation  in  the  next 
Provincial  Congress,  to  which  they  invited  the  attendance 
of  the  “constitutional  members  of  his  Majesty’s  Council.” 
The  people  were  directed  to  “perfect  themselves  in  the  mili¬ 
tary  art,”  and  in  methods,  strangely  enough,  “ordered  by 
the  King  in  the  year  1764,”  these  being,  “in  the  opinion  of 
this  Congress,  best  calculated  for  appearance  and  de¬ 
fence.”  203  On  the  last  day  of  this  “session”  appeared  the 
answer  to  the  above  mentioned  address  from  Governor 
Gage.  In  comment  on  his  declaration  that  the  fortifications, 
“unless  annoyed,  would  annoy  nobody,”  the  delegates  main¬ 
tained  that  the  mere  presence  of  a  standing  army  in  time  of 

201  Journal  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  Oct.  17,  1774,  pp.  20 Jf. 

202  Ibid.,  Oct.  24,  1774,  pp.  27jf. 

203  Ibid.,  Oct.  25,  27,  28,  and  29,  1774,  pp.  30,  35,  38,  39,  41. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  23 5 


peace  was  a  “grievance”  and  “against  law.”  How  much 
more  so  the  fortress! 

We  presume  your  excellency  will  not  deny  that  you  have  exerted 
yourself  to  execute  the  acts  made  to  subvert  the  constitution  of 
the  province,  although  your  excellency’s  connections  with  a  minis¬ 
try  inimical  to  the  province,  and  your  being  surrounded  by  men 
of  the  worst  political  principles,  preclude  a  prospect  of  your 
fully  exercising  towards  this  province  your  wonted  benevolence 
and  humanity;  .  .  . 

Have  not  invasions  of  private  property,  by  your  excellency, 
been  repeatedly  made  at  Boston?  Have  not  the  inhabitants  of 
Salem,  whilst  peaceably  assembled  for  concerting  measures  to 
preserve  their  freedom,  and  unprepared  to  defend  themselves, 
been  in  imminent  danger  from  your  troops?  Have  you  not,  by 
removing  the  ammunition  of  the  province,  and  by  all  other  means 
in  your  power,  endeavored  to  put  it  in  a  state  utterly  defence¬ 
less?  Have  you  not  expressly  declared  that  “resentment  might 
justly  be  expected’’  from  your  troops,  merely  in  consequence  of 
a  refusal  of  some  inhabitants  of  the  province  to  supply  them 
with  property  undeniably  their  own?  Surely  these  are  questions 
founded  on  incontestible  facts,  which,  we  think,  must  prove  that 
while  the  “avowed  enemies’’  of  Great  Britain  and  the  colonies, 
are  protected  by  your  excellency,  the  lives,  liberties,  and  prop¬ 
erties  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  province,  who  are  real  friends  to 
the  British  constitution,  are  greatly  endangered,  whilst  under  the 
control  of  your  standing  army.204 

Then  followed  a  lament  that  “the  honor  of  British  troops 
is  sullied  by  the  infamous  errand  on  which  they  are  sent  to 
America.”  Gage’s  indictment  of  the  violation,  implied  in 
their  illegal  assemblies,  of  the  charter  they  professed  so 
deeply  to  revere,  was  attributed  to  his  “strange  misconcep¬ 
tion  of  facts:” 

The  powers  placed  in  your  excellency,  for  the  good  of  the  prov¬ 
ince,  to  convene,  adjourn,  prorogue,  and  dissolve  the  general 


204  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  p.  43. 


236 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


court,  have  been  perverted  to  ruin  and  enslave  the  province,  while 
our  constituents,  the  loyal  subjects  of  his  majesty,  have  been 
compelled,  for  the  laudable  purposes  of  preserving  the  constitu¬ 
tion,  and  therein  their  freedom,  to  obtain  the  wisdom  of  the  prov¬ 
ince  in  a  way  which  is  not  only  justifiable  by  reason,  but,  under 
the  present  exigencies  of  the  state,  directed  by  the  principles  of 
the  constitution  itself;  warranted  by  the  most  approved  pre¬ 
cedent  and  examples,  and  sanctioned  [sanctified]  by  the  British 
nation,  at  the  revolution;  upon  the  strength  and  validity  of  which 
precedent  the  whole  British  constitution  now  stands,  his  present 
majesty  wears  his  crown,  and  all  subordinate  officers  hold  their 
places.  And  although  we  are  willing  to  put  the  most  favorable 
construction  on  the  warning  you  have  been  pleased  to  give  us  of 
the  “rock  on  which  we  are,”  we  beg  leave  to  inform  you  that  our 
constituents  do  not  expect,  that,  in  the  execution  of  that  important 
trust  which  they  have  reposed  in  us,  we  should  be  wholly  guided 
by  your  advice.  We  trust,  sir,  that  we  shall  not  fail  in  our  duty 
to  our  country  and  loyalty  to  our  king,  or  in  a  proper  respect  to 
your  excellency.205 

The  style  of  this  reply,  no  less  than  its  manly  tone,  shows 
that  the  colonists  had  for  guides  men  in  many  ways  superior 
to  most  of  the  royal  favorites  from  whose  dull  communica¬ 
tions  we  have  often  quoted  in  the  course  of  the  present 
inquiry.  This  contrast  in  leadership  will  not  escape  the 
notice  of  an  attentive  reader. 

On  this  day  also,  the  close  of  the  first  “session”  of  the 
first  Provincial  Congress,  all  public  moneys  accruing  from 
taxes  were  taken  over  by  the  newly  established  government. 
And  partly  owing  to  Gage’s  employment  of  the  detested 
troops  to  disperse  a  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Salem,  the 
Congress  established  a  militia,  ordering  all  towns  to  provide 
necessary  equipment.206 

The  administration  of  the  colony  was  practically  in  control 
of  the  independent  representatives  and  their  leaders  in  the 

205  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  pp.  44 ff. 

206  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  Oct.  29,  1774,  pp.  45jf. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  237 


Provincial  Congress,  which  had  met  on  October  7  and  con¬ 
tinued  in  session  until  Dec.  10,  1774.  On  this  last  day 
also  was  debated  the  feasibility  and  desirability  of  formally 
“assuming  civil  government,”  but  decision  was  deferred. 
In  order  to  avoid  repetition  of  the  old  grievance  of  too 
lengthy  sessions  of  the  General  Court,  it  was  decided  to 
dissolve  the  Congress  at  that  date,  and  to  authorize  the 
election,  in  accordance  with  the  charter  provision,  of  a  new 
Congress,  which  was  to  meet  on  Feb.  1,  1775,  and  to  sit 
until  the  following  May.  Under  this  plan  the  membership 
would  practically  always  be  under  control  of  the  popular 
element.  The  Governor’s  proclamation  of  the  previous 
November,  prohibiting  all  persons  from  complying  with  the 
recommendations  or  resolves  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  was 
almost  completely  ignored.207 

On  the  date  above  mentioned  for  the  assembling  of  the 
new  Congress,  the  members  met  at  Cambridge,  and  elected 
John  Hancock  president.  The  chief  business  regarded 
matters  of  military  supplies,  the  training  of  the  militia, 
winning  the  friendship  of  the  Indians,  watching  the  move¬ 
ments  of  Gage’s  troops,  instituting  measures  to  ascertain  the 
political  sentiments  in  Quebec,  and  collecting  the  taxes.  As 
the  time  approached  for  the  annual  election  of  the  General 
Court,  it  was  resolved  that  if  Governor  Gage  should  issue 
writs  of  election  the  towns  were  to  obey.  The  representa¬ 
tives  thus  chosen  to  the  new  General  Court,  however,  were 
directed  to  refuse  to  act  in  conjunction  with  any  Council 
consisting  of  “mandamus”  members;  and  in  the  event  of 
consequent  dissolution,  they  were  to  assemble  in  another 
Provincial  Congress  “for  the  purpose  of  considering  and 
transacting  the  affairs  of  this  colony.”  On  the  other  hand, 
should  the  Governor  refuse  to  issue  writs,  the  towns  were 
nevertheless  to  elect  representatives  as  usual,  who  would 

207  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress ,  Dec.  10,  1774,  pp.  743.  Proc¬ 

lamation  is  dated  Nov.  10,  1774. 


238 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


assemble  as  above  directed.  The  place  of  meeting  of  this 
new  Provincial  Congress  was  to  be  decided  by  the  old  mem¬ 
bers  from  Charlestown,  Cambridge,  Brookline,  Roxbury,  and 
Dorchester.208 

In  a  few  more  days,  owing  partly  to  the  activities  and 
alleged  brutalities  of  Gage’s  troops,  there  were  deliberations 
for  “raising  and  establishing  an  army,”  and  Rhode  Island, 
Connecticut,  and  New  Hampshire  were  taken  into  the  proj¬ 
ect.  At  the  time  of  the  fight  at  Concord,  the  Congress  was 
not  in  session,  but  the  members  met  three  days  afterward, 
and  on  the  fourth  voted  an  army  of  thirty  thousand.209  It  was 
at  this  stage  of  affairs  that  there  was  manifested  the  first  evi¬ 
dences  of  a  purpose  uncompromisingly  and  openly  to  re¬ 
pudiate  the  authority  of  the  royal  Governor.  This  appeared 
in  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  consider  the  propriety 
of  ignoring  General  Gage’s  writs  of  election,  should  any  be 
issued.210  Moreover,  the  colony  was  at  that  time  virtually 
at  war  with  Great  Britain.  There  were,  in  addition  to  the 
rebellious  military  actions,  the  usual  formalities  of  recognized 
warfare,  —  proposals  for  exchange  of  prisoners  of  war,  the 
granting  of  commissions,  and  of  passes  into  the  colonial 
lines,  and  so  on.211  Early  in  May,  1775,  because  of  the 
activities  of  the  British  troops,  and  especially  the  Concord 
affair,  where,  it  was  declared,  numbers  of  the  respectable 
inhabitants  had  been  without  provocation  “illegally,  wan¬ 
tonly  and  inhumanly  slaughtered,”  the  Congress  recalled  its 
former  resolve  directing  obedience  to  writs  of  election  that 
might  be  issued  by  the  Governor.  This  was  the  first  mani¬ 
fest  indication  of  open  and  complete  repudiation  of  his 
civil  authority;  but  it  must  be  interpreted  as  being  aimed, 

208  Journal  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  Feb.  1,  1775,  pp.  77,  84,  and  pp.  77-116, 
passim,  especially  entry  for  April  1,  1775,  p.  116. 

209  Ibid.,  April  8,  22,  and  23,  1775,  pp.  135,  147/. 

210  Journal  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  April  28,  1775,  p.  163;  May  3,  1775, 
p.  190. 

211  Ibid.,  April  29,  1775,  p.  166;  cf.  also  pp.  172,  184,  189. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  239 


not  at  the  authority  of  the  office,  but  rather  at  the  authority 
of  the  individual,  Thomas  Gage.  The  colony  still  recog¬ 
nized  in  principle  the  authority  of  a  constitutional  royal 
Governor.  The  formal  rejection  of  the  authority  of  the 
office  was  yet  to  come.  As  to  Gage,  the  legal  Governor,  he 
was  now  regarded  as  an  enemy  to  the  province : 

Resolved ,  That  the  said  general  Gage  hath,  by  these  means, 
and  many  others,  utterly  disqualified  himself  to  serve  this  colony 
as  a  governor,  and  in  every  other  capacity,  and  that  no  obedience 
ought,  in  future,  to  be  paid  by  the  several  towns  and  districts  in 
this  colony,  to  his  writs  for  calling  an  assembly,  or  to  his  procla¬ 
mations,  or  any  other  of  his  acts  or  doings;  but  that,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  ought  to  be  considered  and  guarded  against,  as  an 
unnatural  and  inveterate  enemy  to  this  country.212 

The  approaching  election  had  been  authorized  by  the 
Congress  itself,  and  the  representatives  were  directed  to 
convene  on  the  last  day  of  May,  1775,  in  a  session  that 
would  after  six  months  be  automatically  dissolved.  This 
regulation  also  was  born  of  the  old  grievance  against  sessions 
of  too  long  standing.  It  was  by  the  new  Provincial  Congress 
thus  assembled  that  application  was  made  to  the  Conti¬ 
nental  Congress  for  the  “national”  body’s  approval  and 
recommendation  of  complete  assumption  by  Massachusetts 
of  the  civil  government  of  the  colony.  This  critical  measure 
was  urged  as  “absolutely  necessary”  for  the  “salvation”  of 
the  colony,  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  Massachusetts  had 
been  “by  a  corrupt  administration  in  Great  Britain  and 
here  .  .  .  denied  the  exercise  of  civil  government,  according 
to  [the]  charter,  or  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  English 
Constitution.”  And  for  this  very  purpose,  it  was  then  de¬ 
clared,  there  had  been  stationed  in  the  “metropolis”  a 
“formidable  navy  and  army,  not  only  inimical  to  our  safety, 


212  Journal  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  May  5,  1775,  pp.  192jf. 


240 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


but  flattered  with  the  prospect  of  enjoying  the  fruit  of  our 
industry/’ 213 

At  the  usual  time  for  the  election  and  meeting  of  a  new 
General  Court,  in  May,  1775,  there  appeared  in  its  stead  a 
third  Provincial  Congress.  The  proposal  to  the  Continental 
Congress  suggesting  rather  than  seeking  its  advice  concern¬ 
ing  the  seizure  of  all  civil  power  was  earnestly  repeated,  with 
emphasis,  by  way  of  justification,  on  the  consequent  further¬ 
ing  of  the  cause  of  liberty,  and  of  more  efficient  prevention 
of  increasing  disorders,  especially  in  connection  with  violation 
of  the  sacredness  of  private  property  rights.214  This  Congress 
was  also  embarrassed  by  a  proclamation  of  the  Governor 
which  recounted  the  disloyalty  of  many  leaders  of  the 
“faction,”  the  treachery  of  the  attack  on  the  King’s  troops 
at  Lexington,  the  destruction  and  looting  of  private  prop¬ 
erty,  and  the  arming  of  subjects  against  legitimate  authority; 
and  which  offered,  as  a  last  effort  to  avoid  bloodshed  and  to 
effect  a  harmonious  solution  of  difficulties,  complete  pardon 
to  all  who  would  lay  down  their  arms  and  return  to  their 
allegiance  —  John  Hancock  and  Samuel  Adams  excepted. 
By  this  proclamation  also  was  established  martial  law,  a 
measure  provoked  by  and. aimed  at  those  persons  who  were 
termed  “parricides  of  the  constitution.”  215  The  Congress 
in  turn  issued  a  proclamation  of  its  own,  professing  also  to 
grant  complete  pardon  to  all  offenders  against  the  rights 
of  the  people,  and  excepting  Governor  Gage  and  Admiral 
Graves,  and  a  few  others,  among  whom  were  the  three  re¬ 
maining  “mandamus”  Councillors  who  had  refused  to  resign. 
The  document  also  denied  Gage’s  charges  of  disloyalty  and 
treachery,  enumerating  the  justifying  grievances  of  the  late 
extraordinary  proceedings,  namely :  the  presence  of  the  mili- 

213  Journal  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  May  12  and  16,  1775,  p.  219;  cf.  also 
p.  196. 

214  Ibid.,  May  31  and  June  10,  1775,  pp.  273,  319. 

215  Journal  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  June  13,  1775,  pp.  330 ff.,  notes.  Proc¬ 
lamation  is  dated  June  12,  1775. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  241 


tary;  transformation  of  the  ‘“metropolis’5  into  a  “garrison;” 
the  Governor’s  attempts  and  intents  to  seize  public  maga¬ 
zines  of  the  colony  and  to  place  them  “under  the  command 
of  a  foreign  army;”  his  movement  of  troops,  above  referred 
to,  against  the  inhabitants  of  Salem;  his  refusal  to  grant  the 
benefit  of  a  legislative  body;  the  “mutilation”  of  the  “  whole 
system  of  distributive  justice;”  the  authorization  by  Parlia¬ 
ment  of  measures  of  force  to  quell  disturbances,  “by  which 
our  countrymen  were  given  up  as  a  prey  to  a  lawless  sol¬ 
diery.”  They  concluded  with  a  declaration  that  the  mani¬ 
festations  at  Lexington  especially  left  to  the  downtrodden 
people  no  other  resort,  “under  God,  to  preserve  America 
from  Slavery  and  Destruction  but  our  own  arms.”  216 
A  few  days  after  the  publication  of  this  proclamation 
came  news  of  the  approval  by  the  Continental  Congress  of 
the  suggestion  to  take  over  the  civil  government  of  the 
colony.  This  measure  was  justified  on  the  grounds  that  no 
obedience  was  due  to  Parliamentary  Acts  or  to  royal  execu¬ 
tives  when  these  worked  to  alter  the  charter.  The  Governor 
and  Lieutenant-Governor  were  therefore  to  be  considered 
absent,  and  their  offices  vacant;  the  towns  were  to  choose 
representatives  after  the  usual  lawful  procedure;  and  this 
“Assembly,”  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the 
charter,  was  to  elect  the  Council.  In  the  “General  Court” 
thus  organized  were  to  be  vested  all  civil  powers  “until  a 
Governor  of  his  Majesty’s  appointment  will  consent  to 
govern  the  colony  according  to  its  charter.”  217  From  all 
this  it  seems  that  even  yet  the  colony  did  not  consider  itself 
severed  from  the  authority  of  the  mother  country,  but 
simply  as  endowed  with  the  right  and  the  duty  of  interpreting 
its  own  political  privileges,  and  of  defending  the  same  against 
supposed  violations  by  any  power,  not  excluding  the  constitu¬ 
tional  authority  of  the  parent  state.  Up  to  this  time,  what- 

216  Journal  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  June  16,  1775,  pp.  44/f. 

217  Journal  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  June  20,  1775,  p.  359. 


242 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


ever  rebellious  proceedings  were  instituted  were  aimed  at 
prevention  of  violations  of  this  conception  of  political  liberty 
as  perpetrated  by  the  individual,  Thomas  Gage,  and  by  the 
members  of  the  British  Parliament,  rather  than  at  the  over¬ 
throw  of  the  constitutional  authority  of  Great  Britain,  which 
was  as  yet  not  only  not  formally  denied,  but  even  formally 
recognized. 

In  accordance  with  the  plan  for  “assuming  civil  govern¬ 
ment, ”  the  writs  of  election  were  issued,  and  on  July  19, 
1775,  a  new  order  was  instituted  with  the  organization  of  an 
independent  “General  Court.”  This  body  was  to  be  dis¬ 
solved  at  the  latest  in  the  following  May,  when  the  annual 
election  would  come  round.218  Here  was  a  curiously  strange 
state  of  affairs,  —  a  notable  insistence  on  loyalty  to  the 
charter  and  to  established  constitutional  forms  of  govern¬ 
ment,  and  at  the  same  time  complete  repudiation  of  the 
authority  that  underlay  the  political  system  thus  cherished, 
as  well  as  rejection  of  the  legitimacy  of  any  interpretation 
of  the  charter  by  the  very  authority  that  had  conceived 
the  charter  and  extended  its  privileges.  In  declaration  the 
colony  was  still  more  loyal  to  England  and  to  English 
political  ideals  and  tradition  than  was  the  Parliament  itself, 
or  the  royal  Governor.  In  a  word,  Massachusetts  had  now 
assumed,  after  its  generations  of  political  experience  and 
development,  the  proportions  of  statehood. 

The  third  Provincial  Congress  was  by  vote  of  its  members 
dissolved  on  July  19,  1775,  the  day  set  for  the  inauguration 
of  the  newly  assumed  government.219  With  that  act  the 
authority  of  Governor  Gage  was  formally  set  aside,  and 
therefore  comes  to  an  end  this  narrative  of  the  conflicts 
and  controversies  between  the  representatives  and  the  last 
of  the  royal  Governors  of  Massachusetts  Bay.  To  the 
colonists  Thomas  Gage  was  no  longer  Governor  of  His 

218  Journal  of  Each  Provincial  Congress ,  June  20,  1775,  pp.  359ff. 

219  Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress,  p.  501. 


REPUDIATION  OF  ENGLISH  CONTROL  243 


Majesty’s  province,  but  General  of  an  invading  army  that 
menaced  the  rights  of  His  Majesty’s  loyal  subjects.  On  this 
euphemism  a  new  light  was  later  to  be  shed  by  the  Declara¬ 
tion  of  Independence,  which  changed  the  statement  of  the 
colonial  situation  rather  than  the  actual  facts. 


Part  II 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE,  NEW  YORK,  NEW  JERSEY 


CHAPTER  IV 
NEW  HAMPSHIRE 

After  half  a  century  of  practically  independent  govern¬ 
ment  for  the  four  towns  of  Portsmouth,  Hampton,  Dover, 
and  Exeter,  New  Hampshire  became  a  royal  province  in 
1679,  subject  directly  to  the  King  through  a  royal  appointee 
called  the  President.1  Of  the  nineteen  persons  who  repre¬ 
sented  the  Crown  during  the  period  of  royal  control,  less 
than  one  half  were  born  in  America,  and  only  five  were 
natives  of  New  Hampshire.  Aversion  to  “foreign”  rule 
was  so  strong  that  the  first  royal  appointees,  President 
Cutt  and  his  Council,  even  though  they  were  all  natives, 
were  with  difficulty  persuaded  to  accept  the  office,  and  were 
finally  induced  to  do  so  only  from  a  fear  that  others  un¬ 
friendly  to  the  people  might  be  chosen.2 

Cutt’s  commission  provided  for  the  popular  election  of  a 
house  of  representatives,  first  meeting  at  Portsmouth  in 
1680. 3  One  of  its  first  acts  was  to  draw  up  a  code  of  laws 
suitable  to  local  conditions.  This  code,  which  was  based 
upon  forty  years  of  experience  in  local  self-government,  was 
in  part  an  expression  of  the  people’s  desire  for  liberty  as 
implied  in  the  power  of  co-operating  in  their  government.4 

1  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  I,  Introd.,  XL VII. 

2  W.  H.  Fry,  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province,  pp.  65,  85. 

3  Cf.  Cutt’s  commission,  in  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  I,  6. 

4  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  I,  9.  This  code  is  supposed  to  have  been  later  dis¬ 
allowed.  Fry,  p.  437. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


24  5 


Although  they  had  objected  to  the  imposition  of  the  new 
system,  they  became  satisfied  both  with  its  working  and 
with  President  Cutt  and  his  co-partners.  England,  however, 
was  not  satisfied.  And  Captain  Mason  feared  that  with  the 
government  as  it  was  then  constituted  he  could  not  success¬ 
fully  press  his  territorial  claims,  while  the  Board  of  Trade 
objected  to  even  the  “style  and  manner”  of  the  laws  made: 

Upon  the  whole  matter,  their  Lo’ps  agree  to  report  to  his 
Ma’ty  that  the  proceedings  of  the  Government  in  New  Hamp¬ 
shire  have  been  so  irregular  that  it  will  be  necessary  that  some 
person  be  sent  by  his  Ma’ty  to  settle  the  Country  .  .  .5 

The  person  sent  over  to  “settle”  the  country  was  Edward 
Cranfield,  who  in  May,  1682,  arrived  with  a  new  commission. 
Neither  Cutts,  who  died  in  March,  1681,  nor  Waldron,  his 
successor,  had  trouble  with  the  representatives.6  In  the  un¬ 
settled  state  of  the  province,  England  was  doubtless  justified 
in  appointing  some  one  who  would  perhaps  better  represent 
the  home  interests  than  Cutts  and  his  Council,  who  were  all 
of  the  province.7  But  — 

5  Fry,  p.  70;  cf.  also  letter  from  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  Laws  of  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  I,  45. 

6  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  I,  46,  editor’s  note. 

7  “  The  policy  of  the  English  government  toward  New  Hampshire  during  the 
years  which  followed  the  Revolution  may  be  almost  said  to  have  shown  an  ingenu¬ 
ity  of  errors.  It  was  neither  popular  nor  strong.  By  handing  over  the  colony  to 
a  greedy  adventurer,  it  alienated  the  settlers,  by  the  appointment  of  men  well- 
chosen  and  arbitrarily  changed,  it  forfeited  all  chance  of  official  experience  or 
continuous  tradition  in  administration.”  Doyle,  English  Colonies  in  America, 
III,  329-332. 

“  Cranfield’s  ill  conduct  must  be  ascribed  in  a  great  measure  to  his  disappoint¬ 
ment  of  the  gains  which  he  expected  to  acquire,  by  the  establishment  of  Mason’s 
title,  which  could  be  his  only  inducement  to  accept  of  the  government.  This 
disappointment  urged  him  to  actions  not  only  illegal,  but  cruel  and  unmanly.” 
Belknap,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  p.  113. 

“  No  amount  was  too  small  to  attract  him  .  .  .  [he]  showed  an  amazing  adroit¬ 
ness  in  turning  every  incident  of  his  administration  into  money  for  himself.” 
J.  T.  Adams,  The  Founding  of  New  England,  p.  403. 


246 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Its  choice  of  the  individual  selected  was  most  unfortunate 
.  .  .  Edward  Cranfield  .  .  .  was  perhaps  the  most  sordid  and 
reckless  character  who  ever  served  the  Crown  as  a  provincial 
governor,  and  might  have  sat  as  a  model  to  any  “carpet-bagger” 
of  our  post-bellum  period;  and  his  three  years  in  New  Hampshire 
are  but  mildly  characterized  as  an  unbroken  record  of  vulgar 
oppression  and  extortion.  ...  It  is  needless  to  follow  Cranfield ’s 
disreputable  course  in  detail.  It  was  that  of  a  petty  but  thor¬ 
oughly  unscrupulous  tyrant,  who  had  no  thought  for  the  rights 
of  the  people  whom  he  governed,  or  for  the  interests  of  the  Empire, 
and  whose  whole  mind  was  concentrated  in  picking  pockets.8 

He  came  for  money,  and  money  he  will  get,  and  if  he  gets  it, 
you  know  who  must  lose  it,  and  how  miserable  must  our  condi¬ 
tion  quickly  be  .  .  .9 

His  government  was  arbitrary  from  the  first,  and  when  unable 
to  use  the  deputies  to  accomplish  his  purpose,  he  resorted  to  a 
tax  without  their  consent.10 

The  first  session  began  harmoniously  with  a  gift  to  Cran¬ 
field  of  £250,  partly  in  appreciation  of  his  restoration  of 
two  popular  Councillors,  and  partly  to  wean  him  from  the 
Mason  interests.  Soon,  however,  “after  several  warm  de¬ 
bates  .  .  .  (probably  over  money  matters)  he  adjourned 
that  Assembly  ...  in  the  hope  that  they  would  better 
understand  for  the  future.”  11  But  the  new  session  brought 
a  deadlock  that  was  destined  never  to  be  broken.  When 
the  Assembly  refused  to  pass  a  support  bill  presented  by  the 
Governor  and  Council,  Cranfield  retaliated  by  vetoing  all 

8  Adams,  The  Founding  of  New  England,  pp.  402,  404.  See  Osgood,  American 
Colonies,  III,  348. 

9  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  I,  526,  William  Vaughan’s  letter  to  the 
province  agent  Nathaniel  Weare,  Feb.  4,  1684. 

10  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  Provincial  Period,  Introd.,  XXI,  by  the  editor, 
A.  S.  Batchellor. 

11  Belknap,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  Farmer’s  edition,  1831,  p.  101.  Coun¬ 
cillors  were  Waldron  and  Martyn,  later  suspended  a  second  time.  This  Assembly 
passed  a  code  somewhat  similar  to  the  Cutt  Code,  which  Cranfield,  apparently 
approving,  was  writing  to  England  to  have  disallowed.  Cf.  Laws  of  New  Hampshire, 
I,  Introd.,  XLIX.  See  Provincial  Papers,  I,  491. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


247 


the  House  bills  and  ordering  an  immediate  dissolution,  the 
latter  an  innovation  in  the  province,  and  the  occasion  of 
much  resentment,  causing  even  a  miniature  revolution.12 

For  a  year  Cranfield’s  oppression  continued  and  increased, 
with  a  corresponding  deepening  of  the  feeling  against  him.13 

12  Belknap,  p.  98,  Jan.  20,  1683.  Edward  Gove,  a  member  of  the  dissolved 
Assembly,  took  up  arms,  gathering  a  few  people.  He  surrendered  almost  imme¬ 
diately,  was  later  sentenced  to  death,  but  eventually  liberated.  Edward  Ran¬ 
dolph  wrote:  “Many  considerable  persons  .  .  .  would  have  joined  with  him, 
had  he  not  discovered  his  designs,  or  appeared  in  arms  at  that  time.”  A  partial 
reason  for  Gove’s  opposition  was  that  Cranfield’s  appointment  came  from  a  King 
“  who  was  a  Papist,  and  would  bring  popery  in  amongst  them.”  Cf.  Randolph 
to  the  Lords  Commissioners  of  Trade  and  Plantations  in  New  Hampshire  Provin¬ 
cial  Papers,  I,  494.  Belknap,  pp.  98 ff. 

13  The  four  towns  that  constituted  the  province  at  that  time  raised  money  to 
send  an  agent,  Nathaniel  Weare,  to  England  to  lodge  the  following  matters  of 
complaint  against  him:  “  of  acting  in  a  partial  manner  and  contrary  to  his  instruc¬ 
tions  in  reference  to  Mason’s  controversy  with  the  inhabitants,  of  raising  greatly 
the  charges  of  the  various  actions  in  court,  of  establishing  courts  of  justice  and 
imposing  extraordinary  fees  without  the  consent  of  the  assembly,  of  altering  the 
value  of  currency  contrary  to  the  act  of  the  legislature,  of  unjustly  imprisoning 
the  inhabitants,  of  exercising  with  the  council  the  entire  legislative  power,  and  of 
preventing  the  people  from  laying  their  complaints  before  the  King.”  Fry,  p.  77. 
Belknap,  op.  cit .,  p.  203. 

William  Vaughan,  one  of  the  unjustly  imprisoned  inhabitants,  complains  in  a 
letter  to  Weare  that  he  is  held,  on  no  crime,  to  give  bond  for  good  behavior;  that 
justices  dissenting  in  the  condemnation  of  the  minister  Moody,  an  enemy  of  Cran- 
field,  were  “threatened  and  hectored”  into  assent,  and  that  two  who  still  refused 
were  dismissed;  of  interested  juries,  with  actions  going  on  “twelve  at  a  clap;” 
that  Cranfield’s  men  themselves  admit  that  they  have  been  “sent  for  on  purpose 
to  give  in  his  testimony  against  me.  ...  I  have  given  you  but  a  taste.  We 
that  see  it  know  more  than  can  possibly  be  understood  by  those  that  only  hear. 
In  a  word,  such  is  the  height  of  their  heat  and  rage  that  there  is  no  living  for 
us  long  in  this  condition.  But  we  hope  God  will  be  seen  in  the  Mount.  ...  I 
question  whether  any  age  can  parallel  such  actions.  ...  It  is  said  that  our  im¬ 
prisonment  hath  most  alarmed  the  whole  country,  and  made  them  more  fond  of 
their  liberties  .  .  .  the  governor  did,  in  the  open  council  yesterday,  say  and 
swear  dreadfully,  that  he  would  put  the  province  into  the  greatest  confusion  and 
distraction  he  could  possibly,  and  then  go  away  and  leave  them  so,  and  then  the 
devil  take  them  all,”  etc.  Provincial  Papers,  I,  523-533. 

Upon  learning  of  the  complaint  and  petition  sent  to  England,  Cranfield  vowed 
that  he  would  discover  the  names  of  the  subscribers,  and  “that  it  would  be  the 
best  haul  he  ever  had,  for  it  would  be  worth  100  pounds  to  a  man.”  Provincial 
Papers,  I,  563. 


248 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Meantime,  since  there  had  been  no  revenue,  he  was  sorely 
disappointed  in  his  expectation  of  profit.  With  a  year’s 
experience  to  convince  him  that  money  would  come  only 
through  action  of  the  Assembly,  he  called  a  meeting  on 
Jan.  14,  1684,  and  presented  a  bill  already  prepared  by 
himself  and  the  Council,  providing  for  defense  and  other 
charges  of  government.  Upon  its  rejection  by  the  House, 
the  incensed  Governor  declared  that  the  members  had  been 
consulting  for  advice  with  enemies  of  the  church  and  of  the 
King  of  England,  and  another  dissolution  resulted.  Some 
of  the  refractory  members  were  punished  by  being  made, 
through  his  influence,  constables,  —  an  ingenious  revenge 
that  brought  money  into  the  Governor’s  pocket,  since  the 
only  means  of  evading  the  distasteful  office  was  payment  of 
a  £10  fine.14 

Governor  Cranfield’s  ne^t  step  was  an  attempt  to  lay  and 
collect  taxes  without  the  Assembly’s  consent,  an  unprece¬ 
dented  measure  that  caused  disturbance  so  great  and  met 
with  failure  so  complete,  that  no  succeeding  Governor 
imitated  his  example.15  The  pretext  for  this  extraordinary 
measure  was  the  immediate  necessity  arising  from  the  new 
danger  of  Indian  incursions  instigated  by  the  French;  the 
authority,  a  clause  in  the  commission  empowering  Cranfield, 
with  the  Council,  “to  continue  such  taxes  as  had  formerly 
been  levied,  until  a  general  assembly  had  been  called.”  At 
first  the  Council  demurred  against  a  tax  ordinance,  but 
finally  consented,  suggesting  that  previous  to  its  publication 
Cranfield  should  go  to  New  York  to  ask  assistance  from 
Governor  Dongan.16  Before  his  return,  orders  had  come 

14  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  104. 

15  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  182,  327.  Cranfield’s  order  and  the  reasons  for  giving  it 
can  be  read  in  Belknap,  p.  469.  Taxes  and  methods  of  collection  were  to  continue 
in  general  as  previously  arranged  by  law. 

16  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  I,  92,  May  27,  1684.  The  Assembly  afterward  re¬ 
fused  Governor  Cranfield’s  claim  to  reimbursement  for  the  expenses  of  this  journey, 
“which  he  successfully  effected  at  his  own  great  charge  and  expense  of  upwards  of 
forty  pounds.”  Cf.  Belknap,  pp.  109^. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


249 


from  the  Lords  of  Trade  forbidding  the  raising  of  revenue 
without  the  Assembly.  He  therefore  called  a  meeting,  but 
immediately,  because  some  of  his  former  constables  were 
members,  dissolved  it  and  wrote  to  the  secretary  of  state 
representing  the  members  as  rebellious  and  their  meeting 
a  danger  to  the  government,  saying  that  they  had  refused 
support,  and  that  as  a  consequence  he  would  be  obliged  to 
raise  money  without  them,  and  adding  that  a  ‘ 4 ship  of  war” 
would  greatly  simplify  his  difficulties.  In  this  letter,  which 
has  been  characterized  as  “one  of  the  most  delightfully  frank 
*  state  papers  on  record,”  —  Cranfield  asked  for  a  frigate 
“much  as  a  highway  man  might  undertake  to  supply  him¬ 
self  with  a  pistol.”  His  purpose  was  not  only  the  Crown’s 
interest,  but  the  surer  attainment  for  himself  and  accom¬ 
plices  of  “other  advantages.”  17 

Enforcement  of  the  tax  ordinance  was  strongly  opposed; 
collectors  were  insulted  and  often  assaulted;  housewives 
threatened  scalding;  and  when  Mason’s  troop  of  horse  was 
summoned  to  suppress  the  disorder,  not  one  soldier  ap¬ 
peared.  In  the  next  and  last  session,  which  was  called  to 
consider  measures  against  piracy,  the  question  of  support 
did  not  arise.  This  piracy  act  was  practically  the  only 
measure  successfully  passed  in  Cranfield’s  time.18 

Serious  controversy  arose  also  over  the  Governor’s  denial 
to  the  Assembly  of  a  part  in  the  establishment  of  courts. 
Claims  both  for  and  against  this  right  were  based  on  the 
language  of  his  commission: 

We  do  hereby  give  and  grant  unto  you  full  power  to  erect, 
constitute,  and  establish  such  and  so  many  courts  of  judicature 

17  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  110.  Adams,  op.  cit.,  p.  403.  In  spite  of  the  Assembly’s 
attitude,  Cranfield’s  financial  gains  were  considerable:  from  the  Main  trouble, 
3,000  pounds;  the  Narraganset  dispute,  3,000  or  4,000  pounds;  at  Boston,  selling 
pardons,  10,000  pounds;  and  the  5,000  collected  for  the  evangelization  of  the 
Indians  could  well  be  “inspected  into  and  regulated.” 

18  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  pp.  llOjf.  Provincial  Papers,  I,  508.  Session  convened 
July  22,  1684. 


250 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


and  public  justice  ...  as  you  and  they  shall  think  fit  and  neces¬ 
sary  .  .  .19 

The  words  “and  they”  were  claimed  by  the  Assembly  to 
include  themselves  as  well  as  the  Council.  A  recent  his¬ 
torian  20  of  New  Hampshire  confines  the  interpretation  to  the 
Council  alone;  but  the  context  of  the  commission  implies 
that  they  refer  to  both  Council  and  Assembly.  Previous  to 
this  clause,  the  commission  arranged  for  — 

.  .  .  such  reasonable  laws  and  statutes  as  now  are  or  here¬ 
after  shall  be  made  and  agreed  upon  by  you,  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  our  Council  and  the  Assembly  of  our  said  province  .  .  . 

Here,  and  in  the  context  that  follows,  the  Assembly  is 
made  a  part  of  the  government  machinery,  with  occasional 
further  emphasis  by  a  deliberate  repetition,  e.g.f 

And  that  you,  the  said  Edward  Cranfield,  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  our  said  Council  and  Assembly ,  or  the 
major  part  of  them  respectively,  have  full  power  to  make,  con¬ 
stitute,  and  ordain  laws,  statutes  and  ordinances  for  the  public 
peace  .  .  .  etc.21 

Soon  after  this  comes  the  clause  in  question,  in  which  it 
seems  that  the  words  “and  they”  have  very  evident,  if  not 
explicit,  reference  to  both  Council  and  Assembly. 

Later,  Governor  Cranfield  himself  actually  maintained 
that  these  did  not  belong  in  the  commission  at  all  —  “which 
words,”  he  affirmed,  “were  put  in  by  mistake  of  the  clerk.”  22 
This  implies  his  conviction  that  the  Assembly  also  was  in¬ 
cluded  within  the  scope  of  the  disputed  clause. 

19  The  Commission  is  printed  in  Provincial  Payers,  I,  437jf. 

20  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  442jf. 

21  Provincial  Papers,  I,  434,  436. 

22  Cf.  Articles  of  Complaint  against  Cranfield  in  Provincial  Papers,  I,  556. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


251 


His  three  sessions  of  the  legislature  had  brought  nothing 
but  conflict,  and  his  position  in  the  colony  can  be  estimated 
from  the  list  of  oppressions  and  extortions  charged  against 
him.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  great  controversy 
during  this  first  experience  of  royal  government  was  really 
on  the  question  of  taxation  without  representation,  and  that 
“thus  early  in  the  history  of  the  infant  province,  the  old- 
world  struggle  between  the  forces  of  absolutism  on  one  hand, 
and  the  commons  on  the  other  appeared.  The  issue  was  met 
fairly  .  ,  .  and  the  victory  was  with  the  people.”  23 

Early  in  the  summer  of  1685  Cranfield  quietly  left  the 
province;  and  for  about  a  year,  while  a  change  of  colonial 
policy  was  evolving  in  England,  the  deputy  governor,  Walter 
Barefoote,  ruled  without  controversy.24  Then,  as  a  result  of 
the  new  centralizing  policy,  all  New  England  was  placed 
under  one  head,  —  President  Joseph  Dudley,25  who,  after  a 
year,  was  succeeded  in  December,  1686,  by  Sir  Edmund 
Andros  as  Governor  of  the  Dominion  of  New  England.26 
During  the  intervening  period  of  six  years  the  Assembly  was 
abolished,  to  be  restored  in  1692  in  the  commission  of  Gov¬ 
ernor  Samuel  Allen.27  From  its  beginnings  as  a  royal 
province,  there  were  serious  causes  of  disaffection,  which 
continued  down  to  the  Revolution.  William  and  Mary 
occupied  the  throne  of  the  Stuarts. 

In  this  province  the  enquiry  as  to  whether  William  and  Mary, 
their  ministers  and  parliaments,  had  fairly  met  the  obligations 

23  Maurice  H.  Robinson,  History  of  Taxation  in  New  Hampshire,  p.  8,  in  Pub¬ 
lications  of  the  American  Economic  Association,  Series  III,  Vol.  Ill,  1902. 

24  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  113. 

26  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  523.  Dudley’s  commission  was  dated  Oct.  8,  1685.  He  as¬ 
sumed  office  in  May,  1686. 

26  Andros’  commission  was  dated  June  3,  1686.  He  assumed  office  December, 
1686.  He  received  a  second  commission  April  7,  1688.  His  jurisdiction  included 
also  New  York  and  Plymouth.  Cf.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  523. 

27  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  130.  Andros  was  overthrown  in  Boston  on  April  18,  1689. 
In  New  Hampshire,  from  1689  to  1690,  there  was  purely  local  self-government. 
Cf.  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  I,  Introd.,  LXXXII. 


252 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


that  were  imposed  upon  them,  as  the  responsible  heads  of  a  con¬ 
stitutional  monarchy,  in  the  then  existing  relations  with  their 
colonies,  brings  in  issue  the  character  and  fitness  of  the  royal 
governors  and  their  deputies  and  lieutenants,  the  sufficiency  of 
the  measures  employed  and  means  provided  for  the  protection 
and  defense  of  these  outposts  of  English  enterprise  and  racial 
extension,  the  consideration  that  was  accorded  the  province  laws 
submitted  for  confirmation  or  rejection,  the  bestowal  of  the  gov¬ 
ernorship  upon  Mr.  Allen  and  Mr.  Usher,  under  circumstances 
in  which  they  stood  as  contestants  of  the  people  in  respect  to  the 
ownership  of  the  principal  part  of  the  lands  lying  within  the 
boundaries  of  the  province,  and  the  restriction  of  the  trade  of  the 
province  to  the  home  market  in  England  or  to  designated  prov¬ 
inces  under  the  provisions  of  the  navigation  acts.28 

Governor  Allen  hired  his  son-in-law,  Lieutenant-Governor 
John  Usher,  to  administer  the  government  and  did  not 
himself  assume  office  until  within  a  few  months  of  the  arrival 
of  his  successor,  Lord  Bellomont.  His  attempt  to  interfere 
with  the  taxes  was  promptly  resented  and  frustrated;  but 
in  relations  with  the  Assembly  that  were  never  cordial,  there 
were  no  serious  controversies.29 

Allen  had  purchased  from  the  Mason  heirs  their  title  to 
the  soil  of  New  Hampshire,  and  was  appointed  Governor  on 
the  score  of  that  interest.  Hence  the  old  struggle  over  the 
ownership  of  the  land  was  afterward  with  the  executive  of 
the  province,  and  in  his  absence,  with  his  representative  and 
son-in-law,  John  Usher.  This  official  was  hated  almost  as 
much  as  Governor  Cranfield  had  been.  He  was  a  man  of 
strong  impulses,  of  little  tact,  and  proud  of  parading  a 
dignity  inflated  almost  to  a  semi-royal  degree.30 

The  great  point  of  controversy  regarded  finances.  Not 
one  penny  of  salary  was  ever  granted  to  Usher  in  his  position 

28  Cf.  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  I,  Introd.,  XLV. 

29  Provincial  Papers,  II,  286,  289,  291.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  339.  Robinson,  op. 
cit.,  p.  12. 

30  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  149.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  85ff.  Robinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  10. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


253 


of  executive.31  In  May,  1694,  the  House  refused  to  act  on 
his  recommendation  for  payment  of  the  public  debts  as  well 
as  provisions  for  defense,  and  was  immediately  dissolved. 
The  new  Assembly,  which  met  in  the  fall,  was  more  com¬ 
pliant;32  but  its  appropriations  were  apparently  insufficient, 
for  late  in  the  following  year  Usher  repeated  the  suggestions, 
urging  also  provision  for  his  salary.  The  House  replied  that 
the  resources  of  the  province  were  taxed  to  the  utmost  in 
the  sole  matter  of  defense,  and  that  therefore  they  could 
not  support  the  honor  of  the  government.  They  suggested, 
however,  that  he  refer  to  the  consideration  of  the  King  the 
poverty  and  danger  of  the  province,  in  order  to  obtain 
added  means  for  support  and  defense.  Usher  then  proposed 
as  a  solution  the  laying  of  duties  on  certain  articles,  —  which 
the  House  accepted,  but  with  the  proviso  that  he  should 
join  them  in  a  petition  for  annexation  to  Massachusetts. 
They  felt  that  the  province  was  unable,  alone,  to  support  a 
separate  government.33  Usher  refused  the  condition,  and 
no  revenue  bill  was  passed  except  one  for  payment  of  the 
Massachusetts  men  who  had  served  in  New  Hampshire.34 

In  July,  1696,  when  practically  the  same  questions  came 
up,  the  wording  of  a  certain  military  revenue  bill  implied 
control  by  the  House  of  the  application  of  appropriations. 
The  number  of  men  as  well  as  the  period  and  place  of  service 

31  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  96ff. 

32  Ibid.,  pp.  S34>ff. 

33  New  Hampshire  was  placed  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Massachusetts 
Governor  in  1702.  In  1741  their  petition  for  separation  was  granted.  The  fol¬ 
lowing  excerpt  from  a  letter  written  by  Governor  Belcher  throws  light  on  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  the  province.  Some  allowance  must  be  made  for  his  strong  bias:  “The 
charge  of  a  separate  Governor  .  .  .  would  be  an  insupportable  burden  to  that 
poor,  starving,  miserable  Province;  indeed,  its  a  shame  it  should  be  called  a  gov¬ 
ernment.  I  believe  we  have  several  single  counties  in  this  Province  more  than  as 
big  again  as  that  Province  in  land  and  other  estate  and  people;  and  in  time  of  war 
it’s  not  possible  for  that  Province  to  subsist  without  the  assistance  of  the  Mas¬ 
sachusetts.”  Belcher  to  Richard  Partridge,  Jan.  15,  1739,  in  Belcher  Papers, 
Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  6th  Series,  VII,  262. 

34  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  33 6jf. 


254 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


were  determined.  Deeming  this  an  infringement  on  his 
prerogative  as  commander-in-chief  of  the  forces  of  his  prov¬ 
ince,  Usher  refused  to  approve  the  bill  unless  appropriations 
were  made  without  specification.  The  House  refused  and 
was  again  dissolved,  with  the  declaration  that  “they  were 
going  about  to  deprive  him  of  the  power  of  the  King’s 
prerogative.”  35 

In  the  new  Assembly  of  1696  Usher  reminded  the  members 
that  he  had  paid  out  of  his  own  pocket  for  the  provisions  for 
the  frontier  garrison,  and  that  otherwise  the  places  would 
have  fallen  to  the  enemy.  With  provision  also  for  the 
provincial  debts  and  defenses,  he  recommended  measures  to 
insure  wages  and  sustenance  for  soldiers  during  some  time 
to  come.  At  that  time  the  debt  was  more  than  £700,  and 
expenses  during  the  winter  would  amount  to  as  much  more; 
yet  the  sum  raised  was  only  £600.  This,  they  declared,  with 
poverty,  poor  harvest,  and  worse  prospects,  was  the  best 
they  could  do.  The  Council  then  suggested  recourse  to  the 
King,  a  petition  for  a  General-Governor,  and  annexation  to 
Massachusetts. 

After  approving  the  bill  for  £600,  Usher  reminded  the 
members  that  he  had  served  the  province  for  four  years 
without  a  penny  of  salary.  But  to  no  purpose;  the  House 
still  pleaded  poverty,  and  suggested  that  the  only  remedy 
lay  in  his  joining  them  in  a  petition  for  annexation.36 

In  this  unsettled  state  of  affairs  Usher  was  succeeded  by 
William  Partridge  in  December,  1696.  His  removal  had 
been  effected  through  the  opposition  aroused  by  his  conduct 
both  in  the  province  and  at  home.  He  wrote  continually  of 
the  prevalent  disobedience  and  disrespect,  and  declared  that 
the  annexation  to  Massachusetts  was  sought  through  “  sullen¬ 
ness  and  aversion  to  royal  government  rather  than  their 
want  of  ability”  to  provide  for  support  of  a  separate  govern¬ 
ment.  The  following  excerpt  from  the  Assembly’s  letter  to 


35  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  336ff. 


36  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  S37ff. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


255 


the  King  and  the  Lords  of  Trade  is  an  answer  which  at  the 
same  time  indicates  his  position  in  the  province: 

Mr.  Usher  has  complained  to  your  lordships  of  our  being  with¬ 
out  a  government,  and  in  a  lamentable  condition;  whereas  the 
province  was  never  in  a  more  quiet,  peaceable  condition;  nor  has 
there  been  any  disturbance  in  it  since  Mr.  Partridge’s  arrival; 
but  only  what  Mr.  Usher  has  endeavored  to  give  us.37 

After  this,  for  a  period  of  twenty  years  there  was  practically 
unbroken  harmony  between  the  executive  and  the  lower 
House.  Lieutenant-Governor  William  Partridge  (1696-1698) 
was  the  people’s  choice; 38  Lord  Bellomont  (1699-1702)  was 
not  exacting;39  and  Joseph  Dudley  (1702-1715)  was  the 
same  who  had  been,  only  five  years  before,  driven  from  the 
colonies  in  the  Massachusetts  revolution  against  Andros, 
and  who  now  returned  to  begin  an  administration  of  con¬ 
tinual  strife  in  the  very  province  that  had  expelled  him. 
Dudley,  strange  to  say,  had  no  trouble  in  his  joint  New 
Hampshire  government.40  This  fact  is  variously  explained. 
The  unpopular  Usher  had  been  reappointed  Lieutenant- 
Governor  in  1703;  and  Dudley,  befriending  the  local  interests 
that  had  previously  opposed  Usher,  thus  indirectly  opposed 
also  the  Allen  land  claims,  thereby  winning  the  popular  re¬ 
gard.  There  are  instances,  too,  of  Dudley’s  willingness  to 
consider  the  existing  poverty  and  really  dire  straits  of  the 
province,  and  to  moderate  his  demands  accordingly. 

The  greatest  proof  of  Dudley’s  success  is  in  the  grant  he 
obtained  for  a  permanent  salary  of  £160  per  annum.41  This 

37  Provincial  Payers,  II,  367. 

38  Belknap,  op.  cit,,  pp.  152,  154.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  79,  86. 

39  Governor’s  commission  dated  June  18,  1697;  took  office  July  31,  1699.  Cf. 
Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  157. 

40  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  182.  J.  G.  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England ,  III,  346jf. 

41  Palfrey,  op.  cit.,  p.  350.  Provincial  Papers,  III,  pp.  260,  418,  433,  509.  Board 
of  Trade  to  Dudley,  May  26,  1704,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  660.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  0.,  5, 
Vol.  911,  pp.  330-334. 


256 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


is  significant  when  it  is  remembered  that  in  New  Hampshire 
and  all  the  other  royal  colonies  the  question  of  a  permanent 
grant  was  among  the  most  frequent  and  most  serious  causes 
of  dispute.  Dudley  had  been  variously  estimated.  Rich  in 
intellectual  ability,  he  is  described  as  possessing  “a  grovelling 
soul,”  with  ambition  for  his  god.42  And  Professor  Osgood 
has  stated  conservatively  that  New  England  was  “on  the 
whole  fortunate”  in  his  services.  The  account  elsewhere 
given  of  Dudley’s  controversies  with  the  Massachusetts 
legislature  includes  a  more  detailed  study  of  his  character. 

Early  in  1715  Dudley’s  successor,  Eliseus  Burges,  had 
been  appointed,  but  sold  his  resignation  for  £1,000. 43  Owing 
to  the  daily  expected  arrival  of  a  new  Governor,  Dudley 
took  no  active  part  in  administration  during  his  last  year 
in  office,  thus  leaving  affairs  in  the  hands  of  the  new  Lieu¬ 
tenant-Governor,  George  Vaughan.44 

Domineering,  fond  of  asserting  his  authority,  and  of  in¬ 
sisting,  with  direful  threatenings,  on  the  King’s  most  sacred 
prerogative,  Vaughan  soon  summoned  an  Assembly,  which 
granted  his  salary  for  only  one  year,  refused  all  appeals  to 
make  it  permanent,  and  was  therefore  dissolved.45  In  the 
new  House,  convoked  about  three  months  later,  he  again 
tried,  this  time  practically  commanding  a  permanent  revenue. 


42  Palfrey,  op.  cit.,  p.  343.  Cf.  Osgood,  American  Colonies ,  III,  386. 

43  Commission  probably  dated  Feb.  8,  1715.  Cf.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  523.  The 
Massachusetts  agents,  Jeremiah  Dummer  and  Jonathan  Belcher,  together  with 
Sir  William  Ashurst,  prevailed  upon  Burges  to  accept  the  money.  Cf.  Belknap, 
op.  cit.,  p.  183. 

44  Son  of  Major  William  Vaughan,  who  had  suffered  so  much  under  Governor 
Cranfield;  appointed  through  influence  of  Burges.  Cf.  Provincial  Papers,  II,  677; 
Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  184.  Ruled  colony  October,  1715,  to  October,  1716. 

45  Provincial  Papers,  III,  601.  His  addresses  abound  in  expressions  such  as 
“Duty  to  the  Crown,”  his  “Majesty’s  province,”  “British  Monarchy,”  “King’s 
Majesty’s  wise  and  just  administration,”  “Endeavors  for  the  punishment  of  all 
guilty  offenders,”  —  not  exactly  pleasing  words  to  a  people  living  in  an  unpov- 
erished  province,  constantly  invaded,  and  constantly  in  arms  to  protect  it.  “I 
expect  to  be  treated  honorably,  and  according  to  ye  commission  I  am  intrusted 
with.”  Provincial  Papers,  III,  649.  The  session  lasted  from  May  9  to  Aug.  21,  1716. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


257 


But  the  House  again  refused,  declining  to  consider  anything 
except  the  ordinary  business  until  the  arrival  of  the  new 
Governor,  Samuel  Shute  (1716-1722). 46 

Like  Dudley,  Shute  had  constant  strife  in  Massachusetts 
and  comparative  peace  in  New  Hampshire.  He  did  not, 
however,  secure  a  permanent  salary;  and  his  immediate 
substitution  in  the  Council  of  six  new  members  —  all  from 
Portsmouth,  and  all  merchants  or  traders  —  caused  conflict 
in  the  Assembly  because  of  the  advantage  thus  given  to  one 
town,  the  consequent  preferment  of  trade  to  land  interest, 
the  eventual  accumulation  of  tax  burdens  on  the  husbandmen 
and  laborers,  and  the  impossibility  of  passing  any  revenue 
bill  except  as  dictated  by  Portsmouth.  The  Council  in  de¬ 
fending  the  Governor’s  action  only  aggravated  conditions  by 
its  declaration  that  Portsmouth  was  the  “seat  of  almost  all 
the  Gentlemen  of  the  Province.”  47 

On  another  occasion  the  House  had  rejected  a  proposal 
of  the  Council  for  increasing  a  paper  money  issue  then  in 
contemplation.  Shute,  disappointed,  ordered  both  Houses 
to  a  conference;  and  when  the  Assembly  inquired  of  the 
Council  the  subject  matter  of  the  conference,  the  Governor 
took  this  as  an  affront,  and  gave  the  order  for  dissolution. 
This  was  a  mere  pretext;  the  real  reason  was  their  refusal 
to  approve  the  paper  money  increase,  which  in  the  next 
and  more  pliant  Assembly  was  granted.48 

Possibly  because  of  this  subserviency,  Shute  kept  the 

46  Cf.  Provincial  Payers,  III,  649;  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  184.  Vaughan  subse¬ 
quently  came  into  disfavor  with  Shute  by  his  assumption  that  Shute  had  powers 
of  Governor  only  when  actually  residing  in  province.  Consequently,  Vaughan 
disobeyed  certain  commands  of  the  Governor;  and  when  ordered  to  prorogue  the 
Assembly,  he  dissolved  it.  He  also  suspended  one  of  the  Councillors,  and  was  in 
turn,  suspended  by  Shute.  He  was  later  removed  by  the  home  government,  and 
in  his  place  was  appointed  John  Wentworth,  the  poet.  Addison  was  then  secretary 
of  state,  and  countersigned  his  commission.  Vaughan  really  held  office  until 
December,  1716,  when  Shute  arrived.  Cf.  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  187. 

47  Provincial  Papers,  III,  675-678. 

48  Ibid.,  p.  679.  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  pp.  185/f. 


258 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


new  Assembly  in  session  during  the  remaining  five  years  of 
his  administration.  Complaints  from  the  House  and  special 
requests  for  dissolution  were  finally  heeded,  but  not  until 
what  proved  to  be  his  last  year  in  office.  The  constant 
disputes  with  the  Massachusetts  House  soon  after  occa¬ 
sioned  his  return  to  England.49 

During  the  next  six  years,  1723-1729,  the  province  was 
administered  by  the  Lieutenant-Governor,  John  Went¬ 
worth.50  In  general  he  was  acceptable  to  both  people  and 
representatives.  -  One  serious  controversy,  however,  arose 
toward  the  end  of  his  term,  concerning  the  right  of  veto 
over  the  choice  of  speaker.  He  refused  to  approve  the 
choice  of  Nathaniel  Weare  after  the  April  election  of  1728, 
—  a  proceeding  previously  unheard  of  in  the  province  and 
the  cause  of  much  surprise  and  resentment  in  the  House. 
A  protest  against  his  unprecedented  act  was  entered,  to¬ 
gether  with  a  request  to  know  whether  the  commission  or 
instructions  “particularly  mention  the  power  of  Negativing 
a  Speaker  of  the  House.”  In  reply  Wentworth  cited  the 
clause  granting  him  a  veto  on  all  laws,  statutes,  and  ordi¬ 
nances  passed  by  the  General  Assembly.  In  a  few  days  the 
House  answered,  stating  first  that  it  had  no  desire  to  in¬ 
fringe  upon  the  prerogative,  and  declaring  that  by  no 
“Rational  Construction”  could  they  interpret  the  clause 
as  Wentworth  did.  The  veto  power  did  not  imply  “the 
Negativing  Such  orders  and  Rules  of  this  House  as  only 
concern  the  Settlement  and  Regulating  thereof.”  “The 
Negativing  Power  Relates  Wholly  to  Laws,  Statutes  and 

49  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  24.  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  197.  Palfrey,  op.  cit.,  IV,  458. 

50  Appointed  Lieutenant-Governor  Sept.  12,  1717.  Began  duties  Dec.  7,  1717. 
Took  the  chair  in  Governor  Shute’s  place  February,  1723.  Ruled  as  Lieutenant- 
Governor  until  Nov.  2,  1728.  Continued  as  Lieutenant-Governor  under  Burnet 
and  Belcher  until  1731.  His  successor,  David  Dunbar,  was  appointed  Feb.  27, 
1731,  and  began  duties  on  June  24.  During  John  Wentworth’s  time  the  province 
was  continually  at  war,  but  grants  of  supplies  were  given  frequently  and  without 
difficulty.  Cf.  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  81,  283,  484,  passim;  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  523; 
Belknap,  op.  cit.,  pp.  197,  203-221. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


25  9 


Ordinances  to  be  passed  by  the  Gov’r,  Council  and  Assem¬ 
bly.”  They  cited  also  the  settlement  of  this  very  point  in  the 
House  of  Commons  in  the  days  of  Charles  the  Second,  and 
reminded  Wentworth  that  ever  since  that  time  presentation 
of  the  speaker  for  approval  had  been  a  mere  matter  of  form; 
no  King  or  Queen  had  ever  since  questioned  this  settlement; 
therefore  they  hoped  that  Wentworth  would  not  do  so.51 

He  then  agreed  to  yield  the  point,  provided  the  House 
did  not  question  his  theoretical  right.  But  the  House 
regarded  this  as  exactly  the  point  at  issue,  and  insisted 
upon  its  privileges,  reaffirming  and  indorsing  the  original 
choice.  The  resignation  of  the  speaker  at  this  juncture 
partially  solved  the  difficulty;  but  in  the  notice  of  a  new 
choice,  which  was  soon  made,  the  House  included  a  pre¬ 
amble  justifying  its  former  one.  Wentworth  curtly  rejected 
the  preamble,  but  approved  the  new  speaker.52  The  same 
question  arose  in  later  administrations.  Judging  from  the 
tenor  of  the  Assembly’s  reply  to  the  last  speech,  this  first 
difference  was  not  emphasized  because  of  the  arrival  of  the 
new  Governor,  William  Burnet  (1728-1729): 53 

The  new  Governor  presided  at  only  one  session  of  less 
than  a  month.  In  his  instructions  was  contained  the  germ 
of  conflict,  namely,  orders  to  procure  a  fixed  and  permanent 
salary  for  himself  and  his  successors,  and,  failing  this,  a 
fixed  salary  at  least  for  himself  during  continuance  in  office. 
Evidently  influenced  by  the  evasion  of  these  instructions 
in  Massachusetts,  Burnet  requested  in  his  opening  address 
a  fixed  salary  simply  “for  the  time  being,”  54  meaning,  as 

51  Provincial  Payers,  IV,  283,  485,  486,  488,  and  passim. 

52  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  488.  Controversy  ended  on  April  18,  1728.  New 
speaker  was  Andrew  Wiggin. 

53  In  December,  1727,  began  a  long  drawn-out  attempt  by  the  House  to  prevent 
the  Governor  and  Council  from  sitting  as  Court  of  Appeal  from  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  province.  The  struggle,  however,  was  chiefly  with  the  Council,  which 
non-concurred  in  all  of  the  House  votes  on  the  subject.  Cf.  Provincial  Papers,  IV, 
269,  272,  273,  286,  375,  476,  479  and  passim.  The  House  was  not  successful. 

54  Burnet  was  appointed  March  14,  1727-1728;  assumed  office  July  19,  1728. 


260 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


later  contexts  show,  during  continuance  in  office.  The  reply 
of  the  House  is  missing  from  the  records;  but  later  a  fixed 
sum  was  granted  for  three  years,  whereupon  Burnet  recalled 
the  precedent  under  Dudley,  trusting  that  his  own  services 
would  not  be  held  in  less  esteem.  After  a  wTeek  of  considera¬ 
tion  and  the  rejection  of  one  Council  amendment,  the  sal¬ 
ary  was  finally  granted  during  continuance  in  office.55  Pro¬ 
rogation  soon  followed,  and  the  Assembly  did  not  meet 
again  under  Burnet.56  The  salary  question,  however,  by 
that  time  a  quagmire  in  which  floundered  nearly  all  colonial 
Governors,  was  destined  again  to  be  revived  under  the 
next  Governor,  Jonathan  Belcher  (1730-1741). 

Belcher’s  administration  began  under  promising  auspices 
but  ended  in  disaster.  The  Assembly  immediately  granted 
him  a  salary  of  £200  sterling,  or  £600  in  bills  of  credit, 
making  payment  in  the  latter,  which  decreased  in  value 
each  year.  In  1741  Belcher  complained  of  his  consequent 
losses,  showing  in  an  itemized  account  a  total  deficit  of 
£3,240,  and  requesting  that  it  be  made  good.  But  the 

Col.  Soc.  of  Mass.,  II,  XXXIV.  Met  first  Assembly  April  22,  1729;  prorogued  it 
May  15, 1729.  Provincial  Payers,  IV,  504,  522,  533ff.,  555.  His  actual  administra¬ 
tion  lasted  about  a  year,  i.e.,  from  July,  1728,  to  September,  1729.  Cf.  Provincial 
Payers,  IV,  504. 

65  This  amendment  probably  provided  the  desired  extension  of  the  salary  grant. 
The  Council  records  on  this  point  are  missing.  Cf .  Provincial  Payers,  IV,  542,  May  2. 
According  to  Belcher,  quoted  by  Belknap,  oy.  cit.,  p.  225,  this  submission  of  the 
House  was  managed  by  the  Lieutenant-Governor  Wentworth,  who  had  made 
many  of  them  proprietors  in  townships  lately  erected,  and  whose  persuasion  there¬ 
fore  won  their  consent,  —  with  the  condition  that  one  third  of  the  salary  should 
go  to  himself;  Cf.  also  ibid.,  p.  223.  The  amount  of  the  salary  was  £200  sterling, 
or  £600  in  bills  of  credit.  Cf.  Provincial  Payers,  IV,  512,  543,  entry  for  May  9, 
1728.  Belcher,  the  next  Governor,  early  had  trouble  with  Wentworth,  indignantly 
refusing  to  pay  him  the  one  third,  thus  incurring  the  enmity  of  the  leader  of 
a  powerful  faction,  and  laying  the  foundation  for  much  of  his  later  trouble. 
Belknap,  oy.  cit.,  225. 

56  Prorogued  on  May  15  to  second  Tuesday  in  following  August,  but  did  not 
meet  until  December  9.  Meantime,  on  September  7,  Burnet  died,  probably  as  a 
result  of  exposure  and  drenching  when  his  carriage  was  accidentally  overturned 
into  the  water.  Provincial  Payers,  IV,  523. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


261 


Assembly  appealed  to  the  terms  of  the  salary  act,  which 
warranted  payment  either  in  pounds  sterling  or  in  bills  of 
credit,  and  which  made  no  provision  for  the  exigency  of 
fluctuation  in  value.  They  also  took  the  trouble  to  remind 
him  of  his  own  words  on  the  occasion  of  his  acceptance  of 
the  grant:  “As  you  have  dutifully  complied  with  his  maj’- 
ties  order  in  fixing  my  support,  I  am  content,  and  I  thank 
you,  and  I  will  at  no  time  take  any  money  but  what  is  my 
due  and  that  in  the  most  laudable  way  and  manner.”  57 

Conflicts  during  the  preceding  ten  years  had  forced  the 
Assembly  into  this  attitude  and  in  part  explains  its  reply. 
The  chief  causes  of  estrangement  lay  in  the  policy  concern¬ 
ing  paper  money  issues,  and  in  the  objection  to  burdening 
the  province  with  more  taxes  than  were  absolutely  neces¬ 
sary.  As  a  result  the  periods  for  calling  in  the  bills  came 
and  went,  the  time  was  continually  extended,  and  for 
years  the  bills  remained  unredeemed.58  Belcher’s  struggle 
was  to  effect  redemption  within  a  prescribed  time,  to  pre¬ 
vent  further  issues,  to  persuade  appropriations  for  general 
charges  of  government,  to  procure  funds  for  an  empty 
treasury  and  grants  for  defense,  —  a  colossal  task,  under 
the  circumstances,  for  even  a  popular  Governor. 

For  ten  years  Governor  Belcher  worked  at  it,  chiefly  by 
way  of  frequent  hectorings,  threatenings,  and  sudden  dis¬ 
solutions,  which  served  only  to  increase  animosity  and  to 
provoke  encounters.  In  five  years,  1731-1736,  there  were 
seven  dissolutions.  Three  of  the  Assemblies  sat  scarcely 
three  weeks,  and  one  for  only  fourteen  days.59  With  each 


67  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  570;  V,  85. 

68  For  details  on  finances  in  New  Hampshire.  Cf.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  345-358. 


Convened 

Feb.  3,  1731. 
Aug.  29,  1732. 
Jan.  1,  1734. 
Oct.  8,  1734. 
April  30,  1735. 
April  21,  1736. 


Dissolved 

May  18,  1732. 
March  10,  1733 
Jan.  23,  1734. 
Oct.  22,  1734. 
May  17,  1735. 
May  12,  1736. 


Provincial  Papers 

IV,  p.  623 
IV,  p.  644. 

IV,  pp.  666/. 
IV,  pp.  679/. 
IV,  pp.  697/. 
IV,  pp.  711/. 


262 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


new  election,  however,  nearly  the  same  members  were  re¬ 
turned,  a  circumstance  that  caused  the  process  of  contro¬ 
versy  and  opposition  to  be  renewed,  with  only  a  temporary 
respite  in  Belcher’s  last  year,  after  which  the  troubles 
were  revived. 

As  early  as  1731  the  Assembly  opposed  appropriations  for 
the  treasury  and  for  general  charges  of  government,  because 
of  the  consequent  increase  of  taxes  on  a  people  already  too 

heavily  burdened.  Up  to  that  time  a  tax  had  been  laid  each 

> 

year  to  redeem  bills  of  credit  due  after  1742.  War  inroads 
and  the  resulting  impoverishment,  the  heavy  taxes  of  pre¬ 
vious  years,  the  lack  of  natural  resources,  and  the  very  small 
population  all  influenced  the  House  in  refusing  to  impose 
further  taxes.  Instead,  there  was  proposed  a  new  issue  of 
paper  money  redeemable  after  1742,  and  a  large  sum  in 
bills  of  credit  to  be  let  out  on  loan.  Belcher’s  instructions 
forbade  approval  except  under  certain  conditions;  and 
soon  after,  with  a  sharp  reprimand,  the  Assembly  was 
dissolved.60 

Exactly  the  same  proceedings  occurred  a  few  months 
later  in  the  new  Assembly,  which  finally  voted  an  appeal 
to  the  King  for  permission  to  issue  the  additional  paper 
money.  Belcher  continued  the  session  for  six  months  to 
March  10,  1733,  but  without  result.61  Nine  months  later 
he  convoked  a  new  Assembly,  which  lasted  only  three 
weeks.62  At  that  session  a  compromise  was  almost  reached. 
The  House  had  passed  a  bill  that  would  have  solved  most 
of  the  difficulties,  but  included  in  it  a  provision  for  payment 
of  an  agent  in  England,  whose  duty  was  to  push  the  set¬ 
tlement  of  the  boundary  dispute,  and  also  to  work  for 
Governor  Belcher’s  removal.  To  this,  as  well  as  to  a  bound¬ 
ary  line  in  favor  of  New  Hampshire,  Belcher  was  opposed. 

60  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  334,  345,  360/f.  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  623. 

61  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  361,  523.  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  644j ij. 

62  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  667,  Jan.  1  to  Jan.  23,  1734. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


263 


When  the  Council,  probably  under  the  Governor’s  influence, 
rejected  the  bill  as  it  then  stood,  another  deadlock  was 
produced.  The  House  again  resolved  to  appeal  to  the  King, 
and  refused  further  to  consider  tax  questions  until  His 
Majesty’s  pleasure  was  known.  With  another  tirade, 
accusing  them  of  neglecting  bills  to  the  amount  of  £1,730, 
now  twenty  years  overdue,  of  breaking  faith  with  both 
King  and  people,  of  leaving  the  public  debts  unpaid  and 
the  province  undefended,  and  of  manifesting  to  himself 
nothing  but  “singular  rudeness,”  the  order  for  dissolution 
was  repeated.63 

The  fall  session  of  the  new  Assembly  was  likewise  fruit¬ 
less.  Only  a  single  act,  regarding  the  recovery  of  private 
debts,  was  passed.  Belcher’s  patience  with  this  session 
lasted  just  fourteen  days.64  The  Assembly  would  pass  a 
bill  to  force  others  to  pay  their  debts;  how  about  their 
own  public  debt,  and  the  consequent  injustice  to  creditors? 
For  four  years  nothing  had  been  accomplished  but  an  in¬ 
crease  in  the  burden  of  taxes.  “The  good  people  of  this 
Province  should  know  who  are  the  immediate  authors  (as 
snake  in  the  grass)  of  their  present  troubles  and  difficul¬ 
ties;”  but  to  save  the  people,  he  would  dissolve  this  Assem¬ 
bly,  and  permit  the  election  of  one  “free  from  sinister 
views  and  party  designs.”  In  six  months  it  convened;  but 
the  snake  was  apparently  still  in  the  grass,  for  after  seven¬ 
teen  days,  another  deadlock,  and  a  still  more  vehement 
rebuke,  it  was  dissolved.65 

The  new  members,  elected  a  full  year  later,  had  apparently 
been  smarting  under  the  Governor’s  reproaches,  for  on  the 
very  first  day  of  the  session  a  committee  was  appointed  to 
draft  a  reply;  on  the  second  day,  a  resolution  for  a  vote  of 

63  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  pp.  664,  667.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  362.  Dissolved  Jan.  23, 
1734. 

64  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  667,  673-680.  Assembly  met  Oct.  8,  1734;  was  dis¬ 
solved  October  22. 

66  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  67 9Jf.,  697.  Convened  April  30,  1735. 


264 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


thanks  to  the  provincial  agent  was  passed;  and  later,  the 
treasury  supply  bill,  with  the  old  rider  granting  the  agent’s 
salary,  was  sent  up,  only  to  be  again  rejected  by  the  Coun¬ 
cil.66  The  committee’s  draft  in  reply  to  Belcher’s  speech 
declared  that  failure  to  answer  would  imply  a  want  in  “the 
first  Principles  of  Nature,”  a  “neglect  culpable  in  the  sight 
of  God  and  man;”  also  that  every  act  of  the  House  had 
been  the  best  possible  under  the  circumstances;  and  that 
payment  of  the  agent’s  salary  was  a  matter  of  public  faith. 
It  read  in  part  as  follows: 

As  to  your  Excell’ys  solemn  expostulation  how  we  shall  be 
able  to  hold  up  our  heads  before  God  and  the  people,  we  shall 
only  say,  that  as  to  the  people,  we  shall  always  be  able  to  hold  up 
our  heads  before  them,  as  long  as  we  never  betray  their  Trust, 
and  very  well  know  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  generality  of  them, 
as  well  as  of  our  own,  that  we  are  pursuing  their  true  Interest. 
And  as  to  your  Excell’ys  knowing  how  we  shall  hold  up  our  heads 
before  God,  we  must  pray  your  Excell’ys  to  waite  till  that  time, 
when  you  and  we  shall  appear  before  him  without  distinction,  and 
when  our  talking  never  so  much  of  God  and  religion  without 
something  answerable  to  it  will  turn  to  no  account  to  us. 

Belcher,  taking  this  “indecent  answer”  for  an  insult,  replied 
in  kind,  and  ordered  another  dissolution.67 

Financial  problems  were  by  this  time  six  years  old  and 
were  no  nearer  adjudication;  still  another  year  passed  before 
there  was  even  a  semblance  of  agreement.  In  the  new 
House,  which  met  about  ten  months  later,  proceedings 
were  surprisingly  harmonious.68  The  bill  to  pay  the  charges 
of  the  province,  with  its  rider  for  the  agent’s  salary,  was 
approved  by  the  Governor  on  condition  that  the  desig¬ 
nated  £500  should  go  solely  to  his  reimbursement  for  time 
and  money  expended  in  the  affair  of  the  colony’s  boundary 

66  Provincial  Payers,  IV,  697,  701,  705,  706,  710,  711. 

67  Provincial  Payers,  IV,  707jf.  May  12,  1736. 

68  Convened  March  8,  1737;  dissolved  Nov.  17,  1738.  Fry,  oy.  cit.,  p.  523. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


265 


lines.  Other  bills  also  became  law;  but  the  annual  supply 
bill  was  prevented  by  dissolution,  becoming  the  occasion 
of  renewed  hostilities  in  the  next  Assembly. 

e/ 

To  the  new  House,69  because  news  had  come  of  war  against 
Spain,  Belcher  recommended  filling  the  treasury,  in  view 
of  possible  invasion.  But’  the  House,  occupied  with  the 
annual  support  bill  deferred  since  1737,  deemed  it  alone  a 
sufficient  burden  for  the  people,  and  granted  only  a  trifling 
sum  for  the  other  purpose.  With  the  same  old  matters  of 
controversy  still  in  abeyance,  with  defense  appropriations 
not  yet  made,  with  the  public  debt  unfunded,  and  future 
support  of  the  government  unprovided,  the  Assembly  was 
again  dissolved.70  In  the  next  session  of  only  three  weeks, 
a  reluctant  emission  of  bills  of  credit  for  the  expedition 
against  the  Spaniards  in  the  West  Indies  was  obtained. 
The  last  session  under  Governor  Belcher,  which  came  in 
the  following  year,  left  the  public  debts  and  future  needs  of 
the  government  still  unsettled.71 

By  these  frequent  dissolutions  was  aroused  the  keenest 
resentment.  The  House  regarded  them  as  attempts  to 
force  acquiescence,  declaring  them  “very  unhappy  presi¬ 
dents,”  a  grievance  to  the  representatives  in  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  and  even  to  the  Assemblies  of  neighboring  provinces. 
Belcher,  however,  could  not  perceive  “any  great  incon- 
veniency  in  the  dissolution  of  an  Assembly,”  —  with  but 
twelve  towns  that  sent  representatives,  and  the  farthest  one 
less  than  a  day’s  journey  away.  He  therefore  thought  that 
there  had  been  no  overstepping  of  authority.72 

There  was  controversy  also  over  the  Governor’s  right  to 
judge  of  the  validity  of  elections  to  the  House.  In  April, 
1735,  he  had  prohibited  the  administering  of  the  custom- 

69  Convened  Oct.  24,  1739;  dissolved  Feb.  2G,  1740.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  523. 

70  Provincial  Papers,  V,  67.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  365jf. 

71  Ibid.,  pp.  18,  54-85.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  366/f.  Convened  July  12,  1740;  dis¬ 
solved  Aug.  7,  1740.  Convened,  February  12;  dissolved  March  18,  1741. 

72  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  688,  698. 


266 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


ary  oath  to  one  of  the  newly  elected  members,  upon  which 
the  House  refused,  in  spite  of  his  repeated  order,  to  “go 
upon  any  Business”  until  the  member  was  duly  qualified. 
Belcher  disclaimed  any  intention  of  invading  their  privi¬ 
leges,  and  based  his  authority  on  his  commission,  of  which 
the  House  then  requested  a  copy.  It  was  the  part  conferring 
power  to  summon  Assemblies  and  to  administer  oaths  to 
those  duly  elected.  It  was  therefore  a  question  of  who 
should  judge  the  validity  of  elections.  The  House  argued 
that  “if  the  Gover’r  for  the  time  being  hath  authority 
upon  pretense  of  undue  Elections  to  prevent  any  member 
from  acting  in  the  House,  it  would  be  a  power  in  a  manner 
equal  to  that  of  choosing  the  Assembly  himself.”  Belcher 
finally  yielded  the  point.73 

In  the  serious  boundary  dispute  with  Massachusetts,  his 
attitude  and  tactics  caused  much  resentment.  When,  after 
years  of  controversy,  a  commission  was  finally  to  be  ap¬ 
pointed  to  hear  both  sides  and  to  determine  the  line,  Belcher 
prevented  the  New  Hampshire  legislature  from  sending 
delegates  by  proroguing  the  Assembly  to  three  days  beyond 
the  date  set  for  the  hearing.  Informal  representatives 
managed  to  get  their  data  before  the  commission.  After 
the  decision,  but  before  a  copy  could  reach  the  Assembly, 
Belcher  again  prorogued  it,  and  did  not  call  another  meeting 
until  within  four  days  of  the  time  fixed  for  appealing. 
Then  the  Council  continued  his  obstructive  policy  by  imme¬ 
diately  adjourning,  and  forcing  the  House  a  second  time 
to  proceed  informally.  The  dispute  was  finally  settled  by 
the  King  in  New  Hampshire’s  favor.74 

73  Provincial  Payers,  IV,  681,  684. 

74  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  255-261.  This  boundary  controversy  was  really  a  serious 
matter.  As  Belcher  himself  wrote  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  “the  poor  borderers  on 
the  lines  .  .  .  live  like  toads  under  the  harrow,  being  run  into  jails  on  one  side  or 
the  other  as  often  as  they  please  to  quarrel.  They  will  pull  dowm  one  another’s 
houses,  often  wound  one  another  and  I  fear  it  will  end  in  bloodshed,  unless  his 
Majesty  .  .  .  give  some  effectual  order  to  have  the  bounds  fixed.”  N.  H.  State 
Papers,  19,  223;  cf.  also  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  249. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


267 


Belcher’s  administration  was  a  succession  of  disagree¬ 
ments  with  the  Assembly,  chiefly  on  matters  of  finance. 
He  was  not  a  tyrant,  or  openly  oppressive  like  Cranfield 
and  Usher;  yet  he  was  unpopular,  received  no  co-operation, 
and  was  finally  removed  at  the  instance  of  his  own  subjects. 
His  troubles  were  due  in  great  measure  to  his  smallness  of 
character  and  his  ill-controlled  ambition,  of  which  additional 
details  is  given  in  the  discussion  of  his  administration  in 
Massachusetts.75  It  can  hardly  be  said,  however,  that  his 
ten  years  as  Governor  of  New  Hampshire  had  weakened, 
as  it  had  done  in  Massachusetts,  the  King’s  hold  on  the 
people;  they  still  saw  in  His  Majesty  their  chief  protection 
against  the  evil  of  tyrannical  executives. 

Benning  Wentworth,  one  of  the  sixteen  children  of  the 
deceased  Lieutenant-Governor,  John  Wentworth,  adminis¬ 
tered  affairs  during  the  next  quarter  of  a  century,  1742- 
1767.  The  Wentworth  family  was  influential  in  the  prov¬ 
ince;  and  its  numerous  connections,  kinsfolk  and  friends, 
formed  a  powerful  faction.  Benning’s  father  had  held 
office  for  fourteen  years;  his  nephew  and  successor,  John 
Wentworth,  was  Governor  down  to  the  final  break  with 
England.  The  “Wentworth  dynasty,”  therefore,  was  well 
established.  Hardly  a  brother,  a  nephew,  or  a  cousin  was 
without  a  position  in  the  administration.76 

It  should  here  be  noted  that  New  Hampshire  was  then 

75  The  following  excerpt  from  one  of  Belcher’s  letters  shows  something  of  his 
methods.  Aiming  at  dismissal  of  three  objectionable  Councillors,  he  called  a 
meeting,  ostensibly  for  a  Thanksgiving  proclamation;  but  to  Richard  Waldron, 
he  wrote  that  he  “should  really  be  best  pleased  if  it  should  take  the  turn  you  have 
mentioned,  and  that  they  would  do  what  they  do  in  pretty  bold,  rampant  terms, 
to  give  the  better  colour  for  a  suspension  of  two  or  three,  which  seems  (rebus  sic 
stantibus)  to  be  necessary.  Can’t  you  therefore  be  wise  and  guileful  enough  to 
draw  ’em  forth  to  be  warm  in  their  expressions.  .  .  .  But  don’t  let  ’em  dream  of 
what  is  to  follow.”  Belcher  Payers,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  Series  6,  VII,  33 5Jf., 
Oct.  17,  1740. 

76  Lawrence  Shaw  Mayo,  Life  of  John  Wentworth,  p.  5.  Belknap,  op.  cit., 
pp.  203,  336. 


268 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


separated  from  political  union  with  Massachusetts.  Since 
1702  the  two  provinces  had  been  under  one  Governor. 
William  Shirley  was  at  that  time  appointed  for  Massachu¬ 
setts,  Benning  Wentworth  for  the  smaller  province.77 

A  member  of  the  Assembly  and  leader  in  the  oppo¬ 
sition  to  Belcher,  his  appointment  accompanying  the  vic¬ 
tory  in  the  restoration  of  a  separate  Governor,  and  with 
the  advantage  of  his  family  faction,  Benning  Wentworth 
began  under  favorable  auspices  and  had  a  comparatively 
peaceful  term.  Since  one  purpose  in  his  appointment 
was  to  afford  him  opportunity  to  retrieve  his  fortunes, 
lost  through  alleged  breach  of  financial  faith  by  Spanish 
traders,  it  is  easy  to  understand,  in  his  opening  address, 
the  careful  emphasis  on  “his  Majesties  Especial  commands 
.  .  .  that  Provision  be  made  for  the  Hon’ble  Support  of 
the  King's  Goverm’t;”  and  that  on  himself  be  settled  a 
“Salary,  suitable  to  maintain  the  dignity  of  his  office,” 
and  guaranteed  against  depreciation,  —  a  light,  probably, 
from  Belcher’s  experiences.  “Contrary  behaviour,”  he 
added,  “will  affect  your  present  and  future  felicity.”78 

Thus  was  the  salary  controversy  renewed.  When  a 
month  later  the  House  broke  the  royal  instructions  by 
voting  only  a  temporary  grant  and  a  sum  in  his  estimation 
inadequate,  Wentworth  refused  it,  saying: 

I  am  very  far  from  desiring  to  enter  into  any  contest  with  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  this  or  any  other  subject,  but  this  so 
nearly  concerns  the  Honour  of  the  Crown,  the  Prosperity  of  the 
Province,  and  the  peace  of  its  inhabitants,  that  I  should  stand 
highly  chargeable  with  want  of  duty  to  my  Royal  master  should 
I  give  up  so  tender  a  point.79 

The  tender  point  was  ignored  by  the  House,  however, 
whereupon  the  Governor  counselled  them  to  “be  assured 

77  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  84. 

78  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  263.  Provincial  Papers,  V,  136. 

79  Provincial  Papers,  V,  1 45jf . 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


269 


.  .  .  (and  dont  suffer  yourselves  to  be  deluded  or  mis¬ 
guided)  that  you  are  contending  with  the  Crown  and  not 
with  the  Governor.80  Shortly  after,  they  voted  two  sepa¬ 
rate  grants  of  £250  proclamation  money,  but  conditioned 
one  of  them  upon  the  King’s  approval  of  a  £2,300  loan. 
But  it  was  only  an  “inducement”  of  £125  that  finally 
silenced  his  complaints  of  the  smallness  of  the  amount,  and 
persuaded  acceptance.  In  spite  of  this  supposed  niggardli¬ 
ness,  he  was  soon  afflicted  with  the  gout.81 

In  time  the  money  bills  depreciated,  and  Wentworth, 
like  Belcher,  requested  the  House  to  make  up  the  deficit 
and  to  provide  for  like  future  contingencies.  They  refused 
the  latter;  while  the  deficit  which  they  granted  was  con¬ 
sidered  insufficient  by  the  Governor,  who  insisted  that  his 
salary  had  never  been  adequate.  Despite  Wentworth’s 
later  appeals  it  was  five  years  before  the  House  eased  some 
of  his  grievances  by  permitting  a  quarterly  payment  and 
providing  against  depreciation. 

In  January,  1754,  new  salary  difficulties  arose.  At  that 
time  the  £25,000  loan,  from  the  interest  of  which  half  the 
salary  was  provided,  expired.  Thus  was  caused  a  further 
deficit  of  £250,  which  Wentworth  requested  the  House  to 
make  good.  They  did  so,  but  in  new  tenor  bills,  which  he 
refused  as  not  nearly  approximating  in  value  the  £250  pro¬ 
clamation  money.  Then  the  House,  in  determining  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  original  appropriation  act,  declared  it  to 
mean  that  the  part  of  his  salary  accruing  from  the  £25,000 
loan  was  to  cease  when  the  interest  on  the  loan  ceased.  In 
spite  of  his  repeated  appeals  this  deficit  was  never  made  up. 
He  himself  refused,  as  being  too  small,  many  later  grants.  In 
November,  1758,  when  the  question  of  a  deficit  again  arose, 
there  was  less  difficulty.  The  last  salary  controversy  came 
in  January,  1762,  with  another  fruitless  insistence  on 

80  Provincial  Papers ,  V,  p.  148. 

81  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  272. 


270 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


compliance  with  the  provision  of  the  instructions  ordering 
a  fixed  and  permanent  grant.82 

After  Belcher’s  continual  difficulties  over  paper  money, 
controversies  on  this  subject  were  to  have  been  expected 
for  his  successor.  However,  England’s  negative  that  had 
so  handicapped  Belcher  was  somewhat  qualified  for  Went¬ 
worth;  and  the  leniency,  judging  from  the  new  Governor’s 
announcement  of  it  at  the  opening  session,  must  have  been 
deemed  an  inestimable  privilege:  “His  Maj’tie  has  been 
pleased  to  condescend  to  indulge  me  with  his  Royal  leave 
to  consent  to  a  further  ommission.” 

Trouble  was  renewed  in  1744,  when  tidings  came  of  the 
war  against  France.  Wentworth  called  a  special  session  to 
obtain  military  appropriations;  but  when  the  House  pro¬ 
posed  a  new  paper  money  issue,  he  was  forced,  by  reason 
of  the  royal  instructions,  to  disapprove.  Later,  however, 
after  consultation  with  a  joint  committee  and  under  stress 
of  military  necessity,  he  yielded.  But  controversy  began 
again  when  it  was  arranged  that  a  part  of  the  issue  was  to 
be  redeemed  out  of  the  interest  from  the  old  £25,000  loan. 
Wentworth  considered  this  as  government  revenue,  refused 
to  allow  it  to  be  touched,  and  the  bill  was  lost. 

In  the  following  year,  1745,  when  the  Louisburg  expedi¬ 
tion  was  under  consideration,  there  was  a  similar  experience. 
After  considering  means  to  meet  the  estimated  expense  of 
£4,000,  the  House  voted  a  lump  sum  to  defray,  not  only 
this  expense,  but  also  to  provide  for  home  defense  and 
for  the  ordinary  support  of  the  Government.  To  this  there 
were  two  objections:  the  emission  should  be  made  only  for 
the  expedition;  redemption  should  commence  five  years 
sooner  than  arranged  in  the  bill.  What  Wentworth  particu¬ 
larly  objected  to  was  provision  in  this  way  for  the  support 
of  government.  But  the  House  emphasized  the  futility  of 


82  Fry,  op.  tit.,  pp.  107-115. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


271 


providing  for  an  expedition  abroad,  yet  leaving  the  prov¬ 
ince  defenseless  and  resourceless  at  home: 

Does  your  Excellency  think  it  would  be  for  the  honour  of  his 
Majesty,  and  the  safety  of  his  People  in  this  Province  to  leave 
the  Province  in  such  a  naked  and  defenseless  state  as  your  Excel¬ 
lency  is  pleased  to  Represent  it  in  and  at  a  season  when  your 
Excellency  justly  observes  we  may  expect  to  be  attacked  by  sea 
and  land,  to  send  250  of  our  best  men  (when  we  can  barely  spare 
them)  on  an  Expedition  abroad  and  make  no  manner  of  provi¬ 
sion  for  defense  of  his  Majesty’s  Government  at  Home?  The 
House  are  surprised  hereat  and  .  .  .  therefore,  inasmuch  as  your 
Excellency  expresses  your  readiness  to  assent  to  any  Bill  for 
emitting  money  for  the  defraying  the  charge  of  Expedition  again 
Louisburg  without  an  Instruction  to  support  your  Excellency, 
we  hope  and  trust  that  on  further  consideration,  your  Excellency 
will  think  it  of  as  much  importance  to  make  ample  provision  for 
the  protection  of  his  Majesty’s  Province  in  its  naked  and  defenseless 
state.83 

Wentworth,  however,  refused  to  violate  his  instruction, 
thus  continuing  the  dispute  until  the  following  compromise 
was  effected:  provision  for  home  defense  was  suffered  to 
remain  in  the  bill,  while  the  House  agreed  to  an  earlier 
redemption,  and  waived  its  claim  to  include  support  of  the 
government.  But  at  this  stage  the  Governor  hesitated.  He 
thought  that  the  250  men  provided  for  the  expedition  were 
not  sufficient,  that  the  redemption  period  was  too  long,  and 
therefore  he  suggested  that  the  House  find  some  other  way 
of  raising  the  money.  This  recommendation  was  ignored, 
and  thereupon  a  long  discussion  ensued,  which  finally  re¬ 
sulted  in  a  vote  for  100  more  men  and  of  £3,000  to  support 
them,  after  which  the  controversy  ended. 

Ten  years  later,  when  preparations  were  under  way  against 

83  Provincial  Papers,  V,  279 'ff.  Redemption  was  to  begin  after  1756.  The  lump 
sum  approximated  £10,000.  Later  Wentworth  consented  to  £3,000  more.  Cf.  Fry, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  374jf.,  380-383. 


272 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  French  on  Lake  Champlain,  there  was  the  familiar 
dispute,  but  in  the  end  military  necessity  forced  Went¬ 
worth  to  assent  to  an  emission  of  £30,000.  In  the  next 
year,  however,  when  additional  funds  were  needed,  the 
House  reversed  its  position,  opposing  a  further  issue  be¬ 
cause  of  the  depreciation  of  credit  bills.  Later  in  the 
same  session  and  probably  due  to  Shirley’s  influence,  it 
fought  for  a  new  emission.  Wentworth  finally  assented, 
but  not  until  pressure  had  been  brought  to  bear.  He  had 
been  negotiating  with  Governor  Shirley  for  a  loan  of  £6,000 
sterling;  the  House  refused  to  send  up  the  bill  until  their 
new  issue  had  been  approved.84 

During  the  three  years  between  1757-1760  there  were 
five  instances  of  paper  money  controversies.  On  each  occa¬ 
sion  military  necessity  forced  the  Governor  to  approve.85 
In  the  last  instance  he  thus  stated  his  position:  “When  you 
critically  consider  the  Bill,  you  will  find  that  it  repeats  a 
Law  now  in  being,  that  it  militates  with  your  Constitution, 
that  it  supercedes  officers  in  power,  that  it  is  a  great  indig¬ 
nity  to  the  King,  that  it  is  derogatory  of  the  Liberty  and 
Priviledges  of  his  Majesty’s  subjects  .  .  .” 86  The  close  of 
the  war  in  1763  saw  the  end  of  such  controversies. 

Another  conflict,  so  serious  that  for  three  years  (1749- 
1752)  it  put  a  stop  to  all  legislation,  arose  through  Went¬ 
worth’s  attempt  to  interfere  with  membership  in  the  House. 
Simultaneously  his  right  to  veto  the  choice  of  speaker  was 
contested.  The  first  signs  of  this  deadlock  were  noticed 
after  the  January  election  of  1745.  Although  not  authorized 
by  the  Assembly,  the  Governor  sent  writs  of  election  to  six 
places  not  hitherto  represented.  The  House,  therefore,  be¬ 
fore  it  would  proceed  to  elect  a  speaker,  requested  that  his 
“Excell’y  would  be  pleased  to  inform  by  what  means  those 

84  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  384-394,  passim,  and  pp.  187-189. 

86  Ibid.,  pp.  404-414. 

86  Provincial  Papers ,  VI,  785.  See  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  416. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


273 


places  are  authorized  to  send  a  member  to  this  Court.” 
Replying  that  they  were  called  by  the  King’s  writ,  issued 
upon  advice  of  the  Council,  he  ordered  them  to  choose  a 
speaker.  In  the  choice,  however,  the  five  contested  mem¬ 
bers  were  refused  a  vote.  This  occasioned  heated  discus¬ 
sion.  After  some  days,  through  stress  of  impending  war, 
Wentworth  decided  to  let  the  case  drop  until  the  King’s 
pleasure  should  be  known.87 

When  the  instructions  arrived,  the  Governor  was  upheld, 
even  to  the  extent  of  an  additional  direction  to  dissolve  the 
existing  Assembly.88  In  calling  a  new  one  he  was  to  reissue 
writs  to  the  contested  places.  This  he  did  in  January,  1749, 
and  not  only  to  those  places  but  to  several  new  ones.  At 
once,  with  the  choice  of  a  speaker,89  the  contest  reopened. 
As  on  the  other  occasion,  the  representatives  refused  to 
allow  a  vote  to  members  not  recognized  by  the  House,  and 
the  Governor  therefore  refused  to  approve  the  choice  of 
speaker.  For  a  time  the  conflict  rested  on  the  difference  in 
meaning  between  the  words  to  and  from.  The  instructions 
referred  to  the  King’s  right  “of  sending  representatives  to 
such  towns  as  his  majesty  judged  worthy  thereof.”  The 
House  requested  Wentworth  to  explain  the  meaning  of 
sending  representatives  to  towns.  They  could  not  see  how 
this  clause  gave  the  Governor  the  right  to  call  representatives 
from  towns.  “It  is  out  of  our  Power  to  reconcile  to  and  from 
to  one  meaning,  and  make  them  convey  the  same  idea.” 
They  also  made  a  point  of  the  fact  that  some  representa¬ 
tives  had  been  returned  from  places  not  mentioned  in  the 
instructions.  The  discussion  ended  with  a  vote  to  deny 
admission  to  the  contested  members  until  the  King’s  pleas¬ 
ure  should  be  further  known,  whereupon  Wentworth  de- 

87  Provincial  Payers,  V,  261,  264. 

88  Provincial  Payers,  V,  82. 

89  Speaker  chosen  was  Wentworth’s  bitterest  enemy,  Richard  Waldron.  Cf. 
Fry,  oy.  cit.,  p.  139. 


274 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


dared  that  until  they  yielded,  no  business  would  be  done. 
A  deadlock  followed,  and  continued  for  three  years.90 

In  January,  1752,  the  triennial  act  forced  a  dissolution; 
the  newly  elected  House  yielded  every  point  and  offered  an 
address  of  conciliation.91  The  attitude  of  the  former  House 
is  said  by  some  to  have  been  the  result  of  a  plot  conceived 
by  the  rejected  speaker  and  by  others  hostile  to  Wentworth, 
and  aimed  at  his  removal.92  The  only  other  contest  of 
this  nature  occurred  in  1775. 

Efforts  to  establish  court  seats  besides  the  single  one  at 
Portsmouth  also  caused  trouble.  As  settlements  extended 
farther  and  farther  from  the  coast,  there  was  considerable 
inconvenience  attached  to  even  the  journey  to  and  from  the 
Portsmouth  seat,  the  expenses  often  exceeding  the  damages 
claimed.  A  bill  providing  that  the  courts  be  held  quarterly 
in  the  “four  ancient  towns”  had  been  disallowed  by  the  King 
twTenty  years  before.93  On  this  occasion  discussion  of  the 
same  question  was  caused  by  the  resignation  of  the  chief  jus¬ 
tice  because  of  his  inadequate  salary.  In  January,  1755,  the 
House  followed  the  Governor’s  suggestion  for  raising  the 
salary,  but  inserted  in  the  bill  a  rider  dividing  the  province 
into  two  counties,  thus  establishing  another  seat  for  the 
courts.  That  bill  was  lost.  When,  six  months  later,  the 
assistant  justices  also  refused  to  continue  their  services  with¬ 
out  sufficient  compensation,  Wentworth  again,  but  without 
result,  recommended  an  increase.  The  same  thing  occurred 
in  the  year  following,  but  the  House  would  consent  to  no 
allowance  for  the  justices  until  justice  was  made  more 
easily  available.  In  this  extremity  the  Governor  himself 

90  Provincial  Papers,  V,  85.  Laws  of  New  Hampshire ,  II,  594,  editor’s  note. 
Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  159/.,  Provincial  Papers,  V,  76/ 

91  Provincial  Papers,  VI,  161.  Election  held  September,  1752.  Fry,  op.  cit., 

pp.  161/. 

92  Provincial  Papers ,  VI,  38-68,  gives  the  private  correspondence  of  parties 
engaged  in  the  plot.  Belcher  was  implicated. 

93  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  459/. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


275 


paid  the  new  chief  justice  whom  he  had  with  difficulty  per¬ 
suaded  to  accept  the  office.  Again  in  1759  he  tried,  but  the 
House  made  the  same  reply.94  Early  in  the  new  year,  armed 
with  a  specific  instruction  on  the  matter,  Wentworth  re¬ 
newed  the  question,  reminding  the  Assembly  that  further 
neglect  might  bring  consequences  “severer  than  you  can 
conceive.”  After  examining  the  instruction,  the  representa¬ 
tives  answered  that  the  King  could  not  have  been  informed 
of  all  the  “concurring  circumstances”  in  the  case.  And 
they  “said  by  yeas  &  nays,  save  three  unanimously,  that 
they  would  not  give  any  salary  to  the  chief  Justices  .  .  .  but 
that  if  the  Province  might  be  divided  into  two  Counties  as 
seems  his  Excellency  is  not  against  that  then  they  are  willing 
to  give  salary  to  the  Justices  .  .  .”  95 

Wentworth  maintained,  however,  that  the  two  questions 
were  in  no  way  related,  and  repeatedly  urged  compliance 
with  the  royal  instructions.  This  was  persistently  refused, 
thus  leaving  the  contest  still  unsettled  when  the  Governor’s 
nephew,  John  Wentworth,  succeeded  his  uncle  in  1767. 96 

Other  disputes  of  minor  importance  occurred  when  the 
speaker,  in  the  case  of  a  vacancy,  assumed  authority  to 
issue  a  warrant  for  the  election  of  a  new  member,  and  when 
the  Governor  attempted  to  interfere  with  the  membership 
of  a  House  committee.  By  the  end  of  Benning  Wentworth’s 
term,  the  House  had  also  made  considerable  encroachment 
upon  his  powers  as  commander-in-chief,  principally  through 
control  of  enlistments  and  supplies.97 

The  extraordinary  number  of  township  grants  made  by 
Wentworth  —  about  eighty  during  his  administration,  of 
which  sixty-eight  were  in  contested  territory  —  aroused 
much  feeling  against  him,  especially  when  the  natives  saw 

94  Provincial  Papers ,  VI,  418/.,  453/.,  691,  697,  720-730.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
460 /  Chief  justice  was  Eilis  Huske;  new  one,  Theodore  Atkinson. 

96  Provincial  Papers,  VI,  759,  766,  Feb.  13,  1761. 

96  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  463. 

97  Ibid.,  pp.  168,  179/.,  199-208. 


276 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  grants  go  always  to  the  highest  bidder.  Altogether  he 
had  distributed  about  two  hundred  large  tracts,  reserving 
in  each  ease  a  personally  selected  lot  of  500  acres.  Thus 
in  twenty  years  he  had  acquired  100,000  valuable  acres, 
incidentally  fulfilling  one  purpose  of  his  appointment,  the 
retrieving  of  his  lost  fortune.  In  1740  he  was  a  bankrupt 
merchant,  in  1760  a  capitalist.  Through  his  nephew’s  influ¬ 
ence  with  the  Marquis  of  Rockingham  he  was  permitted  to 
resign,  instead  of  being  removed.98 

The  new  Governor  came  to  the  province  at  a  favorable 
period.  The  four  years  following  the  peace  of  1763  had 
brought  unusual  prosperity;  taxes  for  military  appropria¬ 
tions  and  the  redemption  of  bills  of  credit  had  all  but  ceased; 
money  values  no  longer  fluctuated;  commercial,  industrial, 
agricultural,  and  settlement  extension  activities  were  on  the 
increase.  The  people  knew,  too,  that  the  Governor  had 
used  his  influence  with  Rockingham  against  the  “cursed” 
Stamp  Act.99  Moreover,  John  Wentworth  was  a  native, 
though  certainly  not  of  the  natives.  His  very  numerous 
connections  also,  by  blood,  by  marriage,  and  by  social  ties, 
all  served  to  justify  a  political  forecast  in  his  favor.  On  this 
topic  Belknap  wrote: 

His  family,  who  had  long  complained  of  ingratitude  and  neglect, 
were  now  amply  gratified,  not  only  by  the  advancement  of  the 
new  governor,  but  by  his  recommending  several  other  gentlemen 
who  were  connected  with  it  to  the  council  board  and  to  other 
offices  of  government.100 

In  1771  the  Council  membership  was  practically  a  Went¬ 
worth  family  cabinet.101  Other  offices  also  he  was  careful 

98  Mayo,  op.  cit.,  pp.  23jf.  John  Wentworth’s  defense  of  his  uncle  is  in  New 
Hampshire  State  Papers,  XVIII,  560-567. 

99  Fry,  op.  cit.,  p.  420.  Mayo,  op.  cit.,  p.  19. 

100  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  339. 

101  Council  membership:  Mark  Hunting  Wentworth,  the  Governor’s  father; 
Daniel  Rindge,  the  Governor’s  uncle;  Theodore  Atkinson,  uncle  by  marriage; 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


m 


to  pack.  Adams,  in  his  Annals  of  Portsmouth ,  says:  “It 
has  been  objected  against  him  that  all  the  important  offices 
in  the  government  are  filled  by  his  particular  friends.”  102 
Wentworth  in  his  time  doubled  the  number  of  justices  in 
the  province  by  appointing  twenty-five  new  ones  in  Ports¬ 
mouth  alone.  This  policy  was  not  altogether  popular. 
When  in  1776  the  crisis  was  impending,  the  Sons  of  Liberty 
thus  complained :  “We  cannot  depend  upon  the  countenance 
of  many  persons  here  [Portsmouth]  of  the  first  rank,  for 
royal  connection  and  family  connection  influence  the  prin¬ 
cipal  gentlemen  among  us,  at  least  to  be  silent  during  these 
evil  times.”  103  The  following  statement,  referring  also  to 
the  eve  of  revolution,  is  significant:  “The  merchants  and 
clergy  had  remained  neutral,  largely  by  reason  of  the  gov¬ 
ernor’s  popularity  and  the  extent  of  his  family  connection 
and  influence.’  ’104 

These  facts  are  mentioned  in  possible  explanation  of  Gov¬ 
ernor  John  Wentworth’s  reputed  popularity  in  New  Hamp¬ 
shire.  There  is  no  doubt  as  to  his  standing  in  Portsmouth, 
where  the  “Wentworth  dynasty”  was  secure.  Portsmouth 
was  the  home  of  his  “set,”  of  which  many  members  were 
created  by  himself.  But  there  were  two  other  sections  in 
New  Hampshire,  each  devoid  of  aristocratic  tendencies. 
Settlers  in  the  Merrimac  valley  were  chiefly  from  among 
the  “common  people”  of  Massachusetts.  They,  with  their 
republican  principles  and  their  hostility  to  a  reproduction 
of  England’s  social  distinctions,  would  not  have  great 
sympathy  with  the  Portsmouth  “uppers.”  And  in  the 

Daniel  Pierce,  uncle  by  marriage;  Daniel  Rogers,  uncle  by  marriage;  Peter  Livius; 
Jonathan  Warner,  cousin  by  marriage;  Daniel  Warner,  Jonathan’s  father;  George 
Joffrey,  the  son  of  George  Joffrey,  whose  second  wife  was  the  Governor’s  aunt. 
Mayo,  op.  cit.,  p.  79. 

i°2  page  230. 

103  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  pp.  336,  340. 

104  F.  B.  Sanborn,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  American  Commonwealths 
Series,  p.  209. 


278 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


west,  the  frontiersmen,  who  came  chiefly  from  Connecticut, 
a  colony  of  “arch-democrats”  and  enjoying  the  most  liberal 
charter,  would  have  no  love  for  the  royalist  and  stratified 
tradition  of  the  center  of  the  province.  Nevertheless,  the 
pulse  of  the  province  would  be  felt  at  Portsmouth;  and  the 
indication  there  given  of  the  Governor’s  popularity  would 
easily  be  accepted  as  an  index  to  his  standing  in  the  other 
two  districts,  an  inference  not  altogether  warranted.105 

Although  Governor  Wentworth  was  heir-apparent  to  the 
largest  fortune  in  New  England,  the  matter  of  his  salary 
seems  to  have  caused  him  concern,  —  much  more,  indeed, 
than  is  admitted  by  his  latest  biographer,  who  simply  men¬ 
tions  “the  usual  chronic  bicker  over  salary,”  and  straight¬ 
way  dismisses  the  subject  along  with  “other  perennial 
questions  which  bore  the  modern  reader  as  much  as  they 
annoyed  the  provincial  executive.”  Aside  from  recommend¬ 
ing  fitting  recompense  for  the  officers  of  government,  which, 
it  may  be  remembered,  was  really  a  “family  affair,”  John 
Wentworth’s  first  address  was  wholly  taken  up  with  the 
matter  of  his  salary.  He  had  it  “in  command  from  his 
Majesty  to  recommend  .  .  .  that  you  provide  an  adequate 
honorable  and  permanent  salary  for  his  Majesty’s  Gov¬ 
ernor  .  .  .  etc.”  106 

After  voting  a  present  of  £300  for  defrayal  of  traveling 
expenses,  the  House  waited  a  month  before  granting  a  sal- 

106  There  is  no  iconoclastic  purpose  here,  or  desire  to  take  from  John  Went¬ 
worth  the  merit  of  the  really  wonderful  encomiums  he  has  received.  Cf.  Mayo, 
op.  cit .,  pp.  32jf.;  McClintock,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  p.  3 52;  F.  B.  Sanborn, 
op.  cit.,  p.  209.  It  is  simply  a  suggestion  of  the  existence  of  factors  that  may  affect 
present  and  almost  universal  findings  of  history  in  reference  to  this  Governor’s 
reputation  for  popularity.  Further  light  also  is  thrown  by  the  series  of  accusa¬ 
tions  brought  formally  against  him  by  the  one  non-relative  in  the  Council,  Peter 
Livius.  After  four  of  the  seven  charges  were  sustained  by  the  Board  of  Trade,  the 
Privy  Council,  on  appeal,  reversed  the  Board’s  findings.  The  influence  of  Went¬ 
worth’s  patron,  Rockingham,  may  have  been  at  work.  Cf.  Mayo,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
74 jf;  also  Provincial  Papers,  VII,  337-342. 

i°6  Provincial  Papers,  VII,  125,  July  2,  1767.  See  Mayo,  op.  cit.,  pp.  16  and  35. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


279 


ary  of  £700  for  one  year  only.  There  was  an  additional 
£67  for  house  rent  since  his  arrival  in  the  colony.  The 
Council,  however,  rejected  the  bill  because  the  grant  was 
neither  permanent  nor  certain,  inasmuch  as  there  was  no 
guarantee  as  to  treasury  content.  After  weeks  of  discussion, 
the  sum  of  £700  was  granted  during  his  continuance  in 
office,  the  money  to  be  paid  out  of  the  excise;  but  it  was 
provided  that  the  excise  itself  was  to  be  farmed  out  to  ap¬ 
pointees  of  the  whole  legislature.  To  the  latter  clause  the 
Council  again  objected  as  an  infringement  of  the  preroga¬ 
tive.  The  result  was  failure  of  the  salary  bill  in  that 
Assembly.107 

When  the  new  Assembly,  elected  in  May  of  the  following 
year,  maintained  the  old  policy  and  made  the  permanency 
of  the  salary  depend  upon  approval  of  the  contested  clause, 
Wentworth  agreed  to  yield,  provided  the  excise  rider  were 
worded  “so  as  not  to  appear  to  infringe  upon  the  Preroga¬ 
tive.”  Compromise,  however,  was  never  effected;  and  the 
salary  was  ever  after  paid  in  temporary  annual  grants  of 
£700.  Later  on,  when  the  House  granted  him  £60  for 
“Extraordinary  Services  and  Expenses”  incurred  during  a 
journey  to  Boston  in  the  interest  of  the  province,  Went¬ 
worth  handed  it  back  with  the  sneer  that  “the  small  Pare- 
ing  you  have  voted  me  is  the  object  of  my  pity.”  Immedi¬ 
ately,  however,  he  lamented  that  his  salary  had  been  cut 
down  by  that  much,  complaining  that  it  “hath  never  come 
near  to  the  support  of  my  mere  family  expenses.”  108 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  see  something  of  the  “mere  fam¬ 
ily  expenses.”  From  his  own  pen  we  have  a  description  of 
his  magnificent  estate  at  Wolf  boro: 

I  had  selected  the  best  of  all  my  property  in  that  country, 
granted  in  the  large  measure  usual  for  such  cases,  4387  acres, 

107  Provincial  Papers,  VII,  126,  130,  132,  146. 

108  Provincial  Papers,  VII,  177, 179,  232,  234,  245,  257.  Belknap,  op.  cit.,  p.  341. 


280 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


but  amounted  nearer  to  6000.  It  was  subject  to  no  service  or 
quit-rent  .  .  . 

House,  102  feet  long,  etc.,  .  .  .  built  of  the  best,  etc.,  .  .  .  two 
stable  and  coach  houses  .  .  .  glazed  and  painted  completely; 
.  .  .  one  barn  ...  106  feet  long,  etc.,  ...  As  complete  as  pos¬ 
sible;  a  large  dairy  house,  smoke  house  and  ashes  house.  Car¬ 
penter’s,  blacksmith’s  and  cabinet-maker’s  shops,  with  all  pos¬ 
sible  instruments,  and  tools;  cattle,  sheep,  horses,  small  stock, 
boats,  implements  and  furniture  of  all  sorts,  complete,  and  in 
super-abundance.  The  whole  included,  I  think  the  4387  acres 
undervalued  at  .  .  .  £20,000.  ...  In  1774,  the  produce  of  that 
estate  exceed  the  consumption  of  my  whole  family;  and  you 
know  how  we  lived.109 

To  meet  these  “mere  family  expenses”  would  have  con¬ 
sumed  the  combined  salaries  of  many  Governors. 

From  the  preceding  administration  Governor  Went¬ 
worth  had  inherited  the  grievance  concerning  provincial 
courts,  that  is,  that  all  cases  in  New  Hampshire  had  to  be 
tried  at  Portsmouth,  the  only  court  seat.110  The  remedy 
previously  proposed  was  a  division  of  the  province  into 
counties;  and  pending  the  approval  of  a  bill  to  this  effect, 
the  Assembly  had  withheld  the  salaries  of  the  justices.  This 
question  now  confronted  the  new  administration. 

The  first  Assembly  proposed  a  division  into  four  counties, 
which  number  was  reduced  one  half  by  a  Council  amend¬ 
ment.  Progress  was  arrested  when  the  upper  House  denied 

109  John  Wentworth  to  Edward  Winslow,  March,  1786,  quoted  by  F.  S.  San¬ 
born,  op.  tit.,  p.  208.  In  1772,  Wentworth  received  £500  as  a  present,  £100 
for  house  rent,  which  he  complained  of  as  inadequate,  and  £700  in  salary.  As 
surveyor  of  the  King’s  Woods,  he  received  an  additional  £200,  making  £1500  in 
all,  which  would  equal  a  salary  of  perhaps  $10,000  per  annum  in  the  present  day, 
and  which  is  $7000  more  than  the  present  governor  of  New  Hampshire  receives. 
Cf.  Fry,  op.  tit.,  pp.  115,  118. 

110  For  some  frontiersmen  the  expenses  of  travel  to  and  from  Portsmouth  made 
it  cost  £10  to  collect  a  debt  of  £5.  Moreover,  judicial  offices,  with  emoluments, 
were  monopolized  by  the  Portsmouth  “aristocracy.”  Cf.  Mayo,  op.  tit.,  p.  36. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


281 


to  the  representatives  the  right  to  a  voice  in  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  any  new  courts  that  should  be  erected.  At  this 
point  Wentworth  suggested  a  compromise,  and  wrote  to 
England  for  permission  to  carry  it  out.  His  plan  was  to 
divide  the  province  into  five  counties,  giving  to  only  three 
of  them  full  county  privileges.  To  the  King  was  left  the 
decision  as  to  whether  the  manner  of  division  should  be 
determined  by  the  Governor  with  his  Council,  or  by  the 
Assembly.  The  Assembly,  however,  refused  to  leave  the 
latter  point  to  the  discretion  of  the  King,  and  carried  out 
its  resolve  to  grant  no  supplies  until  the  grievance  was 
remedied  according  to  its  desires.  After  some  further  delay 
this  point  also  was  won,  and  a  bill  for  division  into  counties 
was  approved.111 

The  rupture  with  the  last  royal  Governor  in  New  Hamp¬ 
shire  came  simultaneously  with  the  break  with  England. 
The  exact  time  is  doubtful.  It  may  have  been  on  May 
28,  1774,  when  the  House,  in  spite  of  the  Governor,  created 
a  Committee  of  Correspondence.112  This  measure  passed  by 
a  majority  of  but  one  vote.  As  the  only  possible  expedient 
for  undoing  this  work  the  Assembly  was  immediately  ad¬ 
journed,  and  a  few  days  later  dissolved,  in  the  hope  that 
the  committee  also  would  discontinue.113 

The  House,  however,  upon  summons  of  the  committee 
and  in  spite  of  the  dissolution,  met  again  in  its  own  cham¬ 
ber.  When  the  Governor  appeared  on  the  scene,  accom¬ 
panied  by  the  sheriff,  and  declared  the  meeting  to  be 
“illegal  and  dangerous,”  commanding  them  in  the  King’s 
name  to  disperse,  the  members  treated  him  with  the  usual 
respect  by  rising  in  their  seats,  and  after  some  considera¬ 
tion  of  his  order  adjourned  to  another  place  to  finish  the 

111  Provincial  Payers,  VII,  174,  178,  182,  184,  198,  202,  217,  228/.,  274,  275 
passim.  Fry,  op.  cit.,  pp.  463/. 

112  Provincial  Papers,  VII,  365,  369,  399. 

113  Provincial  Papers,  VII,  pp.  369,  399.  Dissolved  on  June  8,  1774. 


28  2 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


business  in  hand,  which  was  the  selection  of  delegates  to 
the  First  Continental  Congress.114 

The  new  Assembly  was  to  have  been  convoked  on 
Feb.  28,  1775;  but  when  Governor  Wentworth  learned  that 
among  its  members  were  many  of  the  participants  and 
principals  in  the  recent  attack  on  the  fort  at  Portsmouth,115 
he  postponed  the  meeting  until  May  fourth,  hoping  to 
bring  them  to  justice,  and  incidentally  to  keep  them  out  of 
the  Assembly.  Portsmouth,  meanwhile,  had  become  unsafe 
for  the  conservatives.  After  Lexington  and  Concord,  many 
fled  to  Boston.  By  that  time  over  1,200  New  Hampshire 
men  had  taken  up  arms.  Therefore,  when  the  Assembly 
met,  the  proposals  of  the  Governor  regarding  conciliatory 
measures  went  unheeded.116  Instead,  an  old  controversy 
was  renewed  when  attention  was  called  to  the  presence  of 
three  members  who  had  come  into  the  House  “in  an  illegal 
and  unconstitutional  manner.”  The  Governor  had  sent 
writs  of  election  to  three  towns  hitherto  unrepresented.  In 
order  to  consult  with  constituents,  the  House  requested  an 
adjournment,  which  after  much  objection  from  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  was  granted  until  the  twelfth  of  June,  1775. 117 

A  few  days  earlier  two  provision  ships  had  been  seized 
by  the  royal  ship  Scarborough.  Starvation  was  not  a 

114  The  Governor’s  proclamation  can  be  read  in  Provincial  Papers,  VII,  400. 
Arrangements  made  by  the  House  in  the  new  meeting  place  provided  that  each 
town  and  parish  was  to  send  to  Exeter  deputies  who  would  choose  the  delegates. 
Colonel  Nathaniel  Folsom  and  Major  John  Sullivan  were  selected.  A  day  of 
prayer  and  fasting  was  appointed,  and  most  religiously  kept.  Cf.  ibid.,  pp.  400jf. 

115  Rumor  had  come  that  Boston  troops  were  approaching  to  seize  the  muni¬ 
tions.  To  offset  this,  the  provincials,  in  number  about  400,  attacked  the  Castle, 
captured  the  half  dozen  defenders,  hauled  down  the  King’s  colors,  and  carried 
away  the  powder  in  boats.  Wentworth’s  call  for  aid  brought  nine  men.  Two 
armed  ships  responded  to  a  later  message  to  Boston.  All  this  took  place  in  Decem¬ 
ber,  1774.  Cf.  Mayo,  op.  cit.,  pp.  141-145. 

116  Provincial  Papers,  VII,  372.  Parliament’s  determination  to  try  remedial 
measures  had  become  known  in  April.  This  probably  prompted  Wentworth’s  plea 
for  caution  and  moderation. 

117  Plymouth,  Oxford,  and  Lynne.  Cf.  Provincial  Papers,  VII,  373-378. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


283 


pleasing  prospect.  Wentworth  himself  protested  against 
this  act,  which  had  a  probable  effect  upon  the  temper  of  the 
House  that  soon  after  convened.118 

Its  first  business  was  the  matter  of  the  three  contested 
members.  A  committee  report  read  in  part: 

That  from  the  time  of  the  first  House  of  Assembly  being  called 
in  this  Province  to  the  year  1744  no  new  Towns  were  allowed  to 
send  Members  to  the  General  Assembly  except  by  a  vote  of  the 
House  .  .  .  [Therefore,  the  House  has  an]  .  .  .  indispensable  duty 
to  prevent  any  encroachments  being  made  on  their  Privileges  .  .  . 
and  .  .  .  the  Governor  sending  Writs  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  other  Branches  of  the  Legislature  .  .  .  appears  to  us  a  mani¬ 
fest  breach  thereof  and  directly  contrary  to  the  Spirit  and  de¬ 
sign  of  the  English  Constitution  and  apparently  pregnant  with 
alarming  consequences.119 

The  House  then  voted  to  exclude  the  three  new  mem¬ 
bers.  On  the  same  afternoon,  one  of  the  three  was  taken 
prisoner  by  the  populace  from  within  the  very  home  of  the 
Governor.  120 

Soon  afterward  appeared  a  reply  to  the  Governor’s  open¬ 
ing  address  regarding  conciliation.  It  expressed  regret 
that  relations  of  so  strained  a  nature  had  arisen  with  the 
mother  country,  and  a  sincere  desire  for  restoration  of  peace 
and  harmony.  On  the  same  afternoon  came  a  second  mes¬ 
sage  from  Governor  Wentworth,  laying  before  them  the 
remedial  resolutions  of  Parliament. 

118  Mayo,  op.  cit.,  p.  150. 

119  Provincial  Papers ,  VII,  378. 

120  The  member  was  John  Fenton  of  Plymouth,  a  staunch  conservative  and 
open  opposer  of  the  new  hostile  spirit  to  England.  He  had  called  on  the  Governor; 
men  under  arms  surrounded  the  Governor’s  house  and  demanded  his  surrender; 
Wentworth  called  for  his  bodyguard,  but  there  was  no  response;  a  cannon  was 
pointed  at  the  door,  and  Fenton  came  out;  he  was  taken  to  Exeter;  the  Governor 
and  his  family  fled  to  the  fort,  which  was  protected  by  H.  M.  S.  Scarborough. 
Cf.  Mayo,  op.  cit.,  pp.  I53ff. 


284 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


There  appears  in  this  solemn  Resolution  so  great  an  affection, 
tenderness  for  your  liberties  and  Readiness  to  be  Reconciled  upon 
Principles,  consistent  with  the  just  Rights  and  Dignity  of  the 
Parent  State  and  the  Privileges  of  the  Colonies  as  precludes  the 
necessity  of  particular  observations  upon  it  .  .  .m 

But  in  order  to  give  time  for  “candid  consideration  and 
an  opportunity  to  take  the  real  .  .  .  dispassionate  sentiment 
of  their  constituents,”  he  adjourned  the  Assembly  for  some 
weeks.122  When  they  again  met  the  Governor  was  a  fugitive 
in  the  fort.  As  he  himself  wrote: 

This  at  present  is  our  case,  confined  on  the  ocean’s  edge,  and 
experiencing  the  inconveniences  arising  from  the  misguided  zeal 
of  those  upon  whose  gratitude  and  affection  I  rejoice  to  have  the 
justest  demand.  I  will  not  complain,  because  it  would  be  a  poign¬ 
ant  censure  upon  a  people  I  love  and  forgive.  For  truly,  I  can 
say  with  the  poet  in  his  Lear,  “I  am  a  man  more  sinned  against 
than  sinning.”  123 

From  the  fort  he  sent  his  message  requesting  that  the 
vote  excluding  the  three  members  be  rescinded.  The  House, 
however,  after  noting  that  the  Council  was  always  appointed 
by  the  Crown,  declared: 

We  think  it  not  only  a  cruel  but  an  arbitrary  stretch  of  Pre¬ 
rogative  for  your  Excellency  to  issue  Writs  to  such  Towns  as  you 
think  proper  to  send  Representatives,  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  other  Branches  of  the  Legislature  therein,  for  by  that  means, 
the  Representatives  as  well  as  the  Council  would  in  effect  be 
chosen  by  the  Crown.124 

Accordingly  they  unanimously  refused  to  rescind  the 
vote.  After  citing  both  law  and  precedent  in  his  favor, 

121  Provincial  Payers,  VII,  379,  380. 

122  Until  July  11,  1775.  Cf.  ibid.,  p.  380. 

123  John  Wentworth  to  Tristram  Dalton,  July  31,  1775.  Quoted  by  Mayo, 
op.  cit.,  p.  157. 

124  Provincial  Papers,  VII,  384. 


NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


285 


Governor  Wentworth  again  ordered  an  adjournment  until 
Sept.  28,  1775.  By  that  time  the  government  had  passed 
from  under  British  control,  and  the  Governor  was  a  refugee 
in  Boston.125 

On  the  whole.  Governor  John  Wentworth’s  relations 
with  his  various  Assemblies  bear  out  his  reputation  for  tact 
as  well  as  for  a  genuine  appreciation  of  provincial  difficul¬ 
ties.  It  can  by  no  means  be  said  that  the  rebellion  was 
either  occasioned  or  hastened  by  oppression  or  abuses  on 
his  part.  In  normal  times  no  man  could  have  anticipated  a 
more  popular  or  more  successful  administration  than  the 
last  royal  governor  of  New  Hampshire. 

126  The  Governor,  who  was  in  Boston  on  September  28,  disliked  to  undergo  the 
humiliation  of  being  unable  to  attend  in  person  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  that 
was  fixed  for  that  date.  Therefore  he  wished  to  further  prorogue  it.  To  do  so 
legally,  however,  the  proclamation  had  to  be  made  on  New  Hampshire  soil,  where 
his  person  was  no  longer  safe.  He  overcame  that  difficulty  by  issuing  the  procla¬ 
mation  from  the  remote  region  of  the  Isle  of  Shoals.  The  new  date  was  April  24, 
1776.  Cf.  Mayo,  op.  tit.,  pp.  160jf. 


CHAPTER  V 


NEW  YORK 

The  study  of  relations  between  Governors  and  their 
Assemblies  in  New  York  begins  with  the  year  1683.  At 
that  time  James,  Duke  of  York,  granted  to  the  people  the 
privilege  of  taking  part  in  the  government  through  a  Gen¬ 
eral  Assembly.  After  three  years  this  privilege  was  with¬ 
drawn;  but  while  it  lasted  there  were  no  conflicts  with  the 
Governor,  Colonel  Thomas  Dongan.  When  James  became 
King,  the  Assembly  was  abolished,  and  all  laws  were  to  be 
made  by  the  Governor  and  Council.1  The  only  disaffection 
toward  Governor  Dongan  arose  toward  the  end  of  his  five 
years  of  administration,  because  of  his  toleration  of  Catho¬ 
lics.2  He  has  been  thus  described  by  an  early  historian  of 
New  York: 

...  a  man  of  integrity,  moderation  and  genteel  manners,  and 
though  a  professed  Papist,  may  be  classed  among  the  best  of  our 
governours.3 

In  1688  Dongan’s  commission  was  transferred  to  Sir 
Edmond  Andros,4  whereupon  he  retired  to  the  Earldom  of 
Limerick. 

With  the  appointment  of  Andros,  New  York  was  united 
to  the  ‘‘Dominion  of  New  England.”  This  was  a  part  of 

1  J.  R.  Brodhead,  History  of  New  York ,  II,  454 ff.  This  has  been  called  the 
establishment  of  tyranny;  but  historical  candor,  through  impartial  consideration 
of  all  circumstances,  is  not  now  so  positive.  New  lights  are  playing,  and  even 
Andros  is  losing  some  of  his  unenviable  reputation  for  despotic  tyranny.  Cf. 
Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  II,  499jf,  526. 

2  Wm.  Smith,  History  of  the  Province  of  New  York,  I,  92jf.  Brodhead,  op.  cit., 
II,  515-521. 

3  Smith,  History  of  the  Province  of  New  York,  I,  66. 

4  Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  II,  509.  Cf.  Andros’  Commission  in  N.  Y.  Colonial  Docu¬ 
ments,  III,  537. 


NEW  YORK 


287 


England’s  recently  adopted  policy  for  securing  more  ef¬ 
fective  control  of  the  American  colonies.  The  annexation 
was  not  favorably  received. 

New  York  and  Massachusetts  could  not  be  sympathetic  .  .  . 
The  oldest,  Dutch  one,  was  always  grand,  inviting,  magnanimous : 
—  the  later,  English  one,  was  ever  sectional,  narrow,  and  selfish.5 

The  union  was  regarded  as  an  “abhorred  connection,” 
and  in  the  northern  colony  Andros  was  detested.  The 
newrs,  uncertain  at  first,  of  the  departure  for  France  of  James 
II,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  throne  by  William  of  Orange, 
fanned  the  flame  of  opposition  among  parties  in  both  places. 
In  New  York,  when  the  course  seemed  safe,  the  majority 
inclined  to  the  side  of  Jacob  Leisler,  leader  of  the  opposi¬ 
tion,  seized  the  government,  and  declared  in  favor  of  Wil¬ 
liam.  But  New  York,  unlike  Massachusetts,  did  not  see  in 
Andros  only  an  odious  tyrant.  In  the  former  colony  there 
had  been  rejoicing  when  Andros  succeeded  the  “Papist” 
Governor,  Dongan.  And  when,  in  the  Boston  uprising  of 
April  18,  1689,  he  was  overthrown  and  imprisoned,  the 
New  York  Council  sent  to  Boston  a  request  for  his  safe 
return,  and  a  letter  of  condolence  to  Andros  himself,  also 
a  message  to  England  denouncing  as  libels  and  falsehoods 
all  the  propaganda  from  Boston  against  Sir  Edmond.6 

Nor  was  the  revolution,  when  it  extended  to  New  York, 
occasioned  by  animosity  to  the  General-Governor.  Its 
chief  cause  was  intolerance  toward  the  few  “Papists” 
remaining  in  the  province,  together  with  the  intense  devo¬ 
tion  of  the  Dutch  Colony  to  its  old  stadtholder,  the  Prince 
of  Orange,  who  had  “liberated”  England  from  its  Catholic 
King.  The  delay  in  the  uprising  wras  partly  due  to  the 

5  Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  II,  515. 

6  Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  II,  515-521.  This  message,  etc.,  was  sent  by  the  Council. 
In  New  York,  as  a  rule,  the  Council  was  on  the  side  of  the  prerogative. 


288 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


fact  that  Lieutenant-Governor  Nicholson  refused  without 
official  instruction  to  proclaim  the  new  sovereign.  This 
attitude  was  construed  by  the  Orange  faction  under  the 
German  Leisler  as  a  stand  in  favor  of  the  Papist  King,  James. 
Leisler  therefore  seized  the  government  in  order  to  “pre¬ 
serve”  it  for  William.  His  justification  throughout  the 
affair  was  the  “Popish  menace,”  and  all  were  Papists  who 
would  not  recognize  the  German  captain.7 

When  tidings  finally  arrived  from  England,  Nicholson 
was  confirmed  in  his  office  of  Lieutenant-Governor,  and 
on  Aug.  31,  1689,  Colonel  Henry  Sloughter  was  appointed 
Governor.  His  instructions  permitted  the  establishment  of 
Assemblies  after  the  manner  of  those  in  other  royal  colonies.8 

The  first  proceedings  of  the  new  Assembly  under  Gov¬ 
ernor  Sloughter  tended  toward  independence.  All  acts  of 
Dongan’s  Assemblies  were  declared  null  and  void.  Among 
these  was  the  “Continuing  Act,”  which  provided  permanent 
support  for  the  government.9  And  a  new  act,  determining 
“what  are  the  Right  and  Privileges  of  the  Inhabitants,” 
amounted  almost  to  a  declaration  that  representation  in  the 
government  was  a  right.10 

Circumstances  at  the  beginning  of  Sloughter’s  term 

7  Brodhead,  op.  tit.,  pp.  515jf.,  575-591.  Leisler  was  later  tried  for  treason 
and  executed.  The  condemnation  was  eventually  reversed  by  William. 

8  Instructions  to  Nicholson,  Transcripts,  Col.  Soc.,  p.  264.  P.  R.  O.,  C.  O.,  5, 
class  389,  Vol.  9,  p.  468.  Cf.  Sloughter’s  instructions  in  New  York  Col.  Doc. 
Ill,  623. 

9  Met  in  April,  1691.  Cf.  Journal  of  the  General  Assembly  of  New  York.  Edward 
Channing,  History  of  the  United,  States,  II,  297.  Smith,  op.  tit.,  II,  299.  This 
declaration  is  considered  by  Channing  to  be  “one  of  the  most  important  measures 
ever  voted  by  a  colonial  Assembly.”  Op.  tit.,  p.  299. 

10  Journal  of  the  General  Assembly  of  New  York.\  May  8,  1691  (hereafter  cited 
as  Assembly  Journal).  This  act,  after  six  years  of  deliberation  by  the  Lords  of 
Trade,  was  vetoed,  and  in  1697  disallowed  by  William.  The  reason  lay  in  the 
objection  to  the  clause  vesting  joint  power  of  government  in  the  people,  through 
their  representatives.  For  the  “Conquered  Province”  of  New  York  the  ministry 
had  not  yet  decided  upon  the  legality  of  this  claim.  Winsor,  Narrative  and  Critical 
History,  V,  193.  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  117. 


NEW  YORK 


289 


promised  harmony.  The  feeling  at  his  accession  was  one 
almost  of  relief,  due  probably  to  the  effect  of  Leisler’s 
despotism  and  usurpation.11  Nevertheless,  the  salary  ques¬ 
tion  soon  came  up,  and  friction  appeared.  The  Assembly 
then  began  those  measures  toward  control  of  the  executive 
that  were  finally  to  evolve  into  practical  independence,  and 
to  render  the  Governor  the  executor  of  the  wishes  of  the 
Assembly,  rather  than  its  master.  The  appropriation  for 
the  Governor’s  salary  was  limited  to  two  years,12  making 
precedent  for  all  future  controversies  on  this  subject.  A 
remonstrance  from  the  Council  was  thus  met: 

We  are  not  wanting  in  our  Duty  to  their  Majesties,  nor  do  we 
intend  any  abridgment  of  their  Majesties’  revenue,  but  on  the 
contrary  we  have  Regard  to  the  heavy  Burthen  and  great  Poverty 
of  the  People  of  this  Province,  who  are  ready  to  sink  under  it; 
you  are  Eye-Witnesses  hereof;  .  .  .  our  House  is  full  of  the  daily 
complaints  of  Merchants,  who  are  threatening  to  follow  the  Rest 
...  [in  leaving  the  poverty  stricken  province.] 13 

Relief  from  financial  and  other  difficulties  was  necessary 
if  the  people  were  to  be  made  content.  But  the  bills  for  the 
purpose  that  were  passed  by  the  House  were  not  reported 
back  “as  timely  as  expected.’’  As  the  session  drew  to  a 
close  the  House  formed  itself  “into  a  Grand  Committee  of 

11  Assembly  Journal ,  April  18,  1691.  Excerpt  from  House  address:  The  members 
“in  all  most  humble  manner,  heartily  congratulate  your  Excellency,  that  as  in 
our  Hearts,  we  do  abhor  and  detest  all  the  rebellions,  arbitrary  and  illegal  Proceed¬ 
ings  of  the  Late  Usurpers  ...  so  do  from  the  bottom  of  our  Hearts  .  .  .  sol¬ 
emnly  Declare,  that  we  will,  with  our  Lives  and  our  Fortunes,  support  and  main¬ 
tain  the  Administration  of  your  Excellency’s  Government”,  etc.  Then  follow 
significant  words  expressing  hope  that  his  “Excellency  may  live  long  and  rule  us  .  .  . 
by  a  General  Assembly.” 

12  Assembly  Journal,  May  15  and  16,  1691.  Brodhead,  op.  cit.,  II,  646. 

13  Assembly  Journal ,  Nov.  11,  1692.  The  last  clause  refers  to  the  fact  that  many 
were  leaving  the  impoverished  and  dangerous  province.  The  reality  of  the  hard¬ 
ships  is  undoubted.  Cf.  the  difficulty  in  collecting  the  taxes  implied  in  Assembly’s 
address  to  Governor,  Sept.  9,  1692.  The  Governor  himself  acknowledged  same  in 
his  address  to  House,  March  22,  1692.  Cf.  Council  Minutes ,  I,  43. 


290 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  whole  House  to  enquire  into  the  Cause  of  such  Delays 
and  Obstructions.”  This  brought  returns  on  two  of  the 
eight  bills  sent  up.  But  the  Governor  “could  not  expedite 
all  the  Bills  given  him,  having  Private  Business  of  his  own.” 
Resenting  this  attitude,  the  House  drew  up  a  remonstrance, 
but  to  no  purpose.  The  Governor’s  neglect  was  further 
emphasized  by  his  failure  to  appoint  some  one  who  could 
give  to  bills  passed  by  the  Assembly  official  form,  thus  pre¬ 
venting  necessary  legislation.  When  the  House  suggested 
the  Attorney-General  or  some  other  fit  person,  Sloughter 
replied  that  his  instructions  did  not  so  stipulate.  There¬ 
upon  the  speaker  produced  an  Order  of  Council,  dated 
April  16,  declaring  it  to  be  “the  duty  of  the  Attorney-Gen¬ 
eral  to  attend  this  House.”  14 

Some  time  later,  while  the  House  was  again  awaiting  the 
Governor’s  action  on  certain  bills,  Sloughter  informed  them 
that  “he  would  pass  no  Bills  until  the  Money  Bill  (for  an 
expedition  to  Albany)  came  up,  and  then  he  would  pass 
them  all  together.”15  This  is  a  rather  early  instance  of  the 
executive  using  the  whip  upon  the  Assembly,  a  coercive 
instrument  soon  to  change  hands. 

These  events  in  themselves  were  not  of  extreme  impor¬ 
tance,  except  in  so  far  as  they  affected  the  Assembly’s 
regard  for  the  royal  Governor  and  his  policy.  If  to  lack  of 
interest  in  the  betterment  of  the  province  he  added  obstruc¬ 
tive  tactics,  then  an  unfavorable  opinion  and  an  unhealthy 
political  philosophy  would  naturally  arise.  Such  practices 
would  logically  result  in  a  tradition  that  from  the  royal 
appointees  only  a  minimum  of  good  could  be  expected,  and 
that  the  gaining  of  advantages  by  the  House  must  largely 
depend  upon  its  own  efforts  and  aggressiveness.  Judging 
from  the  action  of  succeeding  Assemblies,  this  tradition 
seems  to  have  been  established. 

14  Assembly  Journal,  May  5  and  9,  1691. 

15  Assembly  Journal,  Sept.  29,  1691. 


NEW  YORK 


291 


On  Sloughter’s  death,16  in  1692,  several  important  bills 
were  yet  unattended  to.  This  very  first  Assembly  had 
begun  to  “control”  the  Governor  by  making  support 
temporary  instead  of  permanent.  Further  means  of  con¬ 
trol,  applied  chiefly  through  power  over  appropriations, 
were  to  be  adopted  in  succeeding  administrations. 

The  character  and  conduct  of  the  next  Governor,  Ben¬ 
jamin  Fletcher,  was  such  as  to  impel  the  Assembly  to 
strengthen  itself  in  every  way  possible.  He  was  a  man  of  in¬ 
considerable  talents,  avaricious,  hot  tempered,  and  bigoted.17 
A  Governor  who  would  enforce  upon  the  people  a  ministry 
of  his  own  choosing,  both  as  to  denomination  and  personnel, 
who  protected  pirates  and  then  took  a  share  of  their  booty 
as  reward,  who  misapplied  and  embezzled  the  royal  reve¬ 
nues  and  squandered  House  appropriations,  who  manipu¬ 
lated  to  his  own  pecuniary  advantage  the  distribution  of 
the  province  lands,  and  who  employed  illegal  measures  to 
“pack”  his  later  Assemblies,18  —  such  a  one  could  not  but 
engender  an  attitude  of  discontent  with  the  Crown  because 
of  its  appointments,  of  suspicion  and  opposition  toward 
himself,  and  the  strengthening  of  a  distrustful  and  defensive 
tradition. 

Between  Governor  Fletcher  and  his  Assemblies  there  were 
two  outstanding  points  of  conflict,  namely,  the  support  of 
the  government,  and  the  right  of  inducting  ministers  of 
religion. 

That  the  question  of  revenue  should  have  won  a  promi¬ 
nent  place  was  natural.  In  New  York,  after  the  Declara¬ 
tory  Resolution  of  1691, 19  the  state  of  the  treasury  was  gen- 

16  He  was  a  victim  of  intemperance.  The  stirring  events  of  Leisler’s  trial  and 
execution  have  been  passed  over  as  outside  the  scope  of  this  study. 

17  Smith,  op.  cit.t  I,  125. 

18  Cf.  infra;  also  Bellomont  to  Lords  Commissioners  of  Trade  and  Plantations, 
N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  IV,  30 6jf.  Most  of  the  information  concerning  Fletcher  comes 
from  Lord  Bellomont,  his  successor  and  rival;  cf.  also  Winsor,  op.  cit.,  V,  194. 

19  Declaring  null  and  void  all  acts  of  Dongan’s  Assemblies.  Cf.  supra,  p.  37. 


292 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


erally  low.  Soon  after  Fletcher’s  coming  the  committee 
already  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  debts  of  the  province 
was  directed  to  examine  also  “into  the  amount  of  Revenue 
since  his  Excellencv’s  arrival.”  This  committee  was  to 

t j 

work  conjointly  with  one  from  the  Council.  Its  services, 
however,  were  apparently  not  desired,  for  it  was  informed 
that  “his  Excellency  and  Council  have  already  appointed  a 
Committee  to  inquire  into  that  Matter.”  Nevertheless, 
the  House  ordered  a  committee  to  wait  upon  the  Governor 
and  Council,  in  order  to  request  adoption  of  the  original 
plan,  and  to  effect  a  clearance  of  the  “Doubts  and  Ques¬ 
tions”  arising  from  the  Act  concerning  the  province  debts 
and  revenues.  The  Governor  promised  agreement,  but  the 
succeeding  entries,  until  September  7,  are  missing  from  the 
Journal.20 

Until  this  date,  when  a  new  session  was  opened,  the 
House  must  have  been  anticipating  trouble,  or  perhaps 
experiencing  it.  The  first  act  directed  the  new  speaker  to 
“please  address  his  Excellency  and  the  Council,  in  behalf 
at  this  House,  and  Demand  that  their  rights,  Privileges  and 
Customs  be  confirmed  to  them.”  Liberty  of  speech  during 
sessions,  and  adjustment  of  controversies  by  a  joint  com¬ 
mittee  were  requested  and  obtained.21 

On  the  next  day  the  conflict  opened  on  the  question 
of  support  for  the  government.  Fletcher  requested  “their 
Majesty’s  Revenue  to  be  settled  during  life.”  After  a 
protracted  series  of  debates,  a  committee  consisting  of  one 
member  from  each  county  reported  in  favor  of  a  permanent 
grant.  The  House,  however,  would  consent  to  “no  more 
than  a  five  year  provision.”  In  subsequent  disputes  over 
support,  this  was  cited  by  both  House  and  Governor  in  favor 
of  opposite  claims,  that  is,  for  and  against  fixed  grants.22 

20  Assembly  Journal,  I,  March  31  and  April  3,  1693. 

21  Ibid.,  Sept.  11  and  12,  1693. 

22  Ibid.,  Sept.  13,  14,  and  16,  1693.  Council  Minutes  in  Journal,  ibid.  Winsor, 
op.  cit.,  V,  194. 


NEW  YORK 


293 


The  question  of  support  of  the  government  became  there¬ 
after  the  most  important  issue  in  Fletcher’s  administration. 
Practically  every  entry  of  the  House  Journal  is  in  some 
way  concerned  with  it.  The  Council  record  is  a  continual 
exhortation  for  more  money  for  protection  against  the 
French;  that  of  the  Assembly  is  a  continual  holding  back 
and  reduction  in  the  amounts  requested.  The  House 
claimed,  in  justification,  that  the  five  year  revenue  already 
appropriated,  together  with  the  aid  sent  over  from  England, 
was  more  than  adequate  if  employed  for  the  purposes  designed 
in  the  grant.  That  all  moneys  were  not  so  employed  is 
evident  from  the  records;  that  they  were  squandered,  is 
asserted  in  Winsor’s  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of 
America.  According  to  this  authority  moneys  to  the 
amount  of  £40,000,  constituting  the  revenue  of  three  years, 
had  been  generally  misapplied.  When  investigations  were 
attempted,  Fletcher  maintained  that  the  expenditure  of  the 
province  moneys  was  a  matter  into  which  the  House  had 
no  right  to  pry.  That  body  was  to  raise  money,  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  and  Council  to  spend  it.  And  for  its  preposterous 
interest  in  the  expenditure  of  their  constituents’  money,  the 
Assembly  was  prorogued.23 

Now  was  to  come  from  the  House  an  attempt  still  fur¬ 
ther  to  increase  its  power  over  the  provincial  revenues,  by 
claiming  the  right  to  audit  all  public  expenditures.  After 
the  examination  in  1694  of  the  financial  records  of  the 
province,  there  had  been  strong  grounds  for  suspicion  of 
fraud  in  the  application  of  appropriations.  It  was  natural, 
therefore,  that  the  House  should  later  on  request  to  be 

23  In  the  Assembly  Journal  the  only  explicitly  stated  amount  of  the  aggregate 
revenue  since  Sloughter’s  arrival  is  £34,000,  “  and  may  be  more  by  the  Revenue 
and  Additional  Duty.”  Journal,  Oct.  18,  1694,  Vol.  I,  p.  44;  cf.  also  Winsor, 
op.  tit.,  V,  194. 

In  the  next  session  the  House  proved  that  £17,000  appropriated  for  military 
purposes  had  never  been  so  applied.  Journal,  April  8,  1695.  Full  accounts  of 
what  expenditures  had  been  made  were  not  received  until  three  years  later.  Journal, 
June  10,  1698,  Vol.  I,  p.  90. 


294 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


allowed  to  inspect  the  muster  rolls.  On  the  pretense  that 
the  rolls  were  not  available,  Fletcher  refused  to  submit 
them.  When  at  length  some  few  rolls  were  produced,  they 
were  found  to  be  not  authentic.  The  House  therefore  re¬ 
solved  to  pass  no  support  bill  until  the  bona  fide  rolls  were 
forthcoming.  This  resolution  brought  some  further  lists, 
but  they  also  were  incomplete.  With  its  policy  inflexibly 
determined,  the  Assembly  requested  adjournment  until  the 
complete  rolls  could  be  submitted.24  The  Governor  affected 
the  greatest  surprise  at  reading  in  the  House  Journal  a  record 
of  the  grievance  that  the  receiver-general’s  accounts  were  not 
open  to  inspection.  The  House,  however,  meant  that  not 
all  the  accounts  had  been  submitted,  despite  the  fact  of 
Fletcher’s  previous  declaration  regarding  care  of  provincial 
funds: 

I  have  pursued  an  unpresidented  caution,  plainness  and  integ¬ 
rity  not  fingering  any  farthing  myself.25 

In  nearly  every  address  that  Fletcher  made  after  the  sus¬ 
picions  of  the  House  had  been  aroused,  there  were  expres¬ 
sions  to  the  same  effect.  On  the  advice  of  the  Council,  the 
request  for  adjournment  was  refused,  pending  passage  of 
the  support  bill.  Then,  lest  the  province  be  altogether  un¬ 
supported,  the  House  granted  £1,000. 26 

To  this  grant  Fletcher  objected  because  of  the  accompany¬ 
ing  conditions.  Through  these,  which  determined  the  spe¬ 
cific  application  of  the  money,  the  House  was  reaching  out 
for  still  more  complete  control  of  appropriations.  Its 
reason  for  stating  the  conditions  was  to  guard  against  mis- 

24  Assembhj  Journal ,  March  27,  1695.  For  a  statement  of  the  Assembly’s  view¬ 
point  on  this  claim  to  examine  the  accounts,  see  Argument  before  the  Lords  of 
Trade  as  to  the  Act  of  New  York  compelling  the  Farmers  of  the  Excise  to  lay  before 
the  Representatives  an  Account ,  New  York  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  1869,  pp.  177 'jf.;  cf. 
also  Assembly  Journal,  March  28,  29,  and  30  and  April  1,  1695. 

25  Assembly  Journal,  March  23,  1695. 

26  Ibid.,  April  1  and  2,  1695. 


NEW  YORK 


295 


application  and  possible  fraud.  The  Governor’s  instruc¬ 
tions,  however,  required  that  all  appropriations  be  made 
in  general  “for  their  Majesty’s  use”  and  with  no  further 
specification.  Rut  the  House  held  its  ground.  Then  was 
offered  to  it  another  account  of  revenues  expended.  This 
they  declared  to  be  the  balances  of  the  accounts,  and  not 
the  actual  record  of  expenditures.  Deadlock  continued. 
Finally  the  diligent  House  committee  drew  up  a  lengthy 
report,  'proving  the  existence  of  revenues  not  yet  accounted 
for.  This,  of  course,  Fletcher  denied,  and  charged  the 
surplus  to  incidentals.27 

Matters  grew  worse,  and  words  sharper.  At  length,  from 
the  muster-master  at  Albany  came  intelligence  that  the 
prescribed  quotas  of  men  had  never  been  completed.  Yet 
money  had  been  appropriated  for  payment  of  the  full  quotas. 
The  House  was  thus  convinced  of  the  existence  of  a  surplus 
still  unaccounted  for.28  The  Governor,  however,  still  denied, 
and  even  demanded  further  supplies  for  military  purposes. 

At  this  stage  of  the  controversy,  in  order  to  correct  any 
spreading  opinion  that  the  House  by  its  refusal  of  support 
was  unwilling  to  protect  the  province,  the  members  peti¬ 
tioned  to  have  their  minutes  printed,  thus  making  evident 
to  all  its  position  and  the  reasons  therefor.  Meantime,  the 
Governor  was  becoming  more  and  more  incensed  at  their 
demands,  as  well  as  at  their  stubbornness  in  enforcing 
them.  Just  before  ordering  dissolution,  he  declared: 

There’s  never  a  man  amongst  you,  (except  Peter  De  La  Noy) 
pretends  to  understand  an  account.29 

27  Assembly  Journal ,  April  5  and  9,  1695.  Channing,  op.  cit.,  II,  302. 

28  Council  Minutes  and  Assembly  Journal,  April  9,  10,  and  11,  1695.  One  expla¬ 
nation  of  the  fate  of  the  surplus  is  implied  in  the  following  from  a  letter  of  Bello- 
mont  to  the  Lords  of  Trade:  “  Indeed,  the  cry  of  the  people  is  so  great  that  Coll: 
Fletcher  hath  embezzled  and  converted  to  his  own  use  great  sums  of  the  public 
money  .  .  .”  N .  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  IV,  304. 

29  Assembly  Journal,  April  13  and  22,  1695.  Council  Minutes,  April  13,  1695. 
For  brief  account  of  this  episode  cf.  Channing,  op.  cit.,  II,  315. 


296 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


With  subsequent  Assemblies,  it  appears  that  Governor 
Fletcher  had  little  trouble  —  either  because  with  the  French 
menace  impending,  the  House  recognized  the  imprudence 
of  making  opposition;  or  because,  as  Bellomont  declared, 
Fletcher  had  packed  succeeding  Assemblies  with  his  own 
minions.30 

Another  very  serious  point  of  controversy  during  Fletcher’s 
incumbency  regarded  the  establishment  and  support  of  min¬ 
isters.  Every  minister,  according  to  the  Governor’s  instruc¬ 
tions,  was  to  be  certified  by  the  Bishop  of  London.  Such 
an  arrangement,  which  implied  the  endowment  and  conse¬ 
quent  establishment  of  the  Anglican  Church,  could  not  but 
arouse  strong  opposition  in  an  Assembly  composed  for  the 
major  part  of  nonconformists.31 

The  Governor  himself,  apparently  anxious  to  secure 
settlement  for  a  minister  in  every  town,  strongly  recom¬ 
mended  this  measure  to  the  House;  but  the  latter’s  dis¬ 
favor  is  shown  in  the  long  drawn-out  debates  on  the  sub¬ 
ject.  When  finally  a  bill  was  passed,  the  Council  at  once 
returned  it  with  an  amendment  vesting  in  the  Governor 
full  right  of  inducting  all  ministers.  This  amendment  was 
rejected.32  Fletcher’s  words  at  the  time  indicate  the  strained 
relations  between  the  various  departments  of  government: 

You  have  shown  a  great  deal  of  stiffness.  You  take  upon  you 
as  if  you  were  dictators.  I  sent  down  to  you  an  amendment  of 
three  or  four  words  in  that  Bill,  which  tho’  very  immaterial,  yet 

30  Bellomont  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  New  York  Col.  Doc.,  IV,  315;  cf.  also  .4s- 
sembly  Journal  for  May  19,  1698. 

31  The  instructions  are  given  in  New  York  Col.  Doc.,  Ill,  818.  They  seem  to 
indicate  that  the  late  agitations  against  “  Popery  ”  were  not  without  result. 
Accompanying  this  order  to  quasi-establish  Anglicanism,  there  was  a  clause 
guaranteeing  liberty  of  conscience.  This  did  not,  however,  prevent  hostility 
from  the  Dissenting  sects.  To  the  Roman  Catholics  in  New  York,  the  clause  did 
not  apply.  These  were  deprived  of  both  civil  and  religious  liberty  until  after  1776. 
Cf.  Winsor.  op,  cit.,  V,  191jf.  Doyle,  op.  cit.,  IV,  228. 

32  Assembly  Journal,  March  22,  April  3  to  Sept.  15,  and  Sept.  21  and  22,  1693. 


NEW  YORK 


297 


was  positively  denyed.  I  must  tell  you  it  seems  very  unmannerly; 
there  never  was  an  amendment  yet  desired  by  the  Council  board, 
but  what  was  rejected.  It  is  the  sign  of  a  stubborn  ill  temper.  .  .  ,33 

Apparently  the  Governor  made  test  of  the  importance  of 
a  measure  according  to  the  number  of  words  it  contained. 
In  reality  the  House  had  rejected  very  few  amendments, 
because  very  few  had  been  submitted.  Fletcher,  on  his 
part,  had  neglected  measures  that  were  most  important. 
Among  others,  regulations  for  the  probate  of  wills  and 
ordinances  for  the  establishment  of  fees  had  been  pending 
since  the  first  sessions.34 

The  “very  immaterial”  amendment  referred  to  by 
Fletcher  in  the  passage  above  quoted  would  have  conferred 
upon  him  the  right  to  enforce  acceptance  of  any  minister 
he  chose  regardless  of  denomination.  This,  with  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  religion  in  so  delicate  a  state,  would  have  caused 
untold  trouble.35  It  was  perhaps  by  way  of  retort  that  the 
Assembly  declared  that  in  passing  the  bill  as  they  had  done, 
they  were  mindful  of  the  Governor’s  “pious  intent  of  set¬ 
tling  a  Ministry  for  the  Benefit  of  the  People .”  They  may 
have  inferred  that  to  confer  on  him  full  right  of  inductance 
would  have  been  to  make  that  “pious  intent”  to  his  own 
exclusive  benefit,  and  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  people. 
Fletcher  was  aroused  by  this  sally,  and  informed  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  that  they  were  far  mistaken  if  they  ever  hoped 
to  prevent  his  collating  and  suspending  ministers.  More¬ 
over,  he  intended  to  oversee  and  to  censure  preaching  and 
religious  teaching.  Then  shifting  to  the  other  great  point 
in  dispute,  the  support  of  the  government,  he  continued : 

33  Council  Minutes,  Sept.  22,  1693. 

34  Assembly  Journal,  Aug.  23,  1692. 

35  It  was  not  so  long  since  the  Catholic  James  II  had  been  charged  with  abdica¬ 
tion  and  the  Protestant  William  of  Orange  had  taken  possession  of  the  throne, 
discarding  his  religious  beliefs  to  suit  the  official  Anglican  religion  of  which  he 
became  head.  In  New  York  the  Anglicans  made  a  very  small  minority. 


298 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


It  is  my  endeavor  to  lead  a  virtuous  &  pious  life  amongst  you, 
&  to  give  a  good  Example.  I  wish  you  all  to  do  the  same.  You 
ought  to  consider  that  you  have  but  a  third  share  in  the  legis¬ 
lative  power  of  the  Government,  and  ought  not  to  take  all  upon 
you,  nor  be  so  peremptory;  you  ought  to  let  the  Council  have  a 
share;  they  are  in  the  nature  of  the  House  of  Lords  or  Upper 
House;  but  you  seem  to  take  the  whole  power  in  your  own  hands 
&  sett  up  for  everything.  You  have  sett  a  long  time  to  little  pur¬ 
pose  &  have  been  a  great  charge  to  the  Country,  ten  shillings  a 
day  is  a  large  allowance  &  you  punctually  exact  it.  You  have 
always  been  forward  enough  to  pull  down  the  fees  of  other  min¬ 
isters  in  the  Government.  Why  do  you  not  think  it  expedient  to 
correct  your  own  to  a  more  moderate  allowance.36 

Governor  Fletcher’s  term  is  important  chiefly  because 
during  it  began  what  were  probably  the  most  important  of 
the  conflicts  waged  by  the  New  York  Assemblies  against 
the  royal  Governors,  that  is,  on  the  extent  of  the  power  of 
the  representatives  over  appropriations.  The  House  had 
begun  in  Sloughter’s  time  by  making  the  Governor’s  salary 
temporary;  under  Fletcher  it  refused  permanent  support 
for  the  government,  limiting  the  appropriation  to  a  five 
year  period.  Then,  because  of  suspicions  of  misapplication 
and  of  fraud,  it  claimed  the  right  to  inspect  the  public 
accounts,  and  later  on  the  right  also  to  determine  specific 
use  of  appropriations.  This  was  the  state  of  the  question 
at  the  end  of  Governor  Fletcher’s  administration.  The 
conflict  was  not  to  be  settled  until  1715,  when  Governor 
Robert  Hunter  would  be  forced  to  yield  every  point  con¬ 
tended. 

After  1695  Fletcher  had  but  little  trouble  with  the  As¬ 
sembly —  possibly  because  of  his  success  in  “packing.” 
His  making  over  to  individuals  of  large  land  grants  for  the 
sake  of  the  fees  caused  dissatisfaction  more  throughout  the 
province  than  in  the  Assembly  itself.  Later  there  was  an 

36  Council  Minutes ,  Sept.  22,  1693,  Vol.  I,  p.  48. 


NEW  YORK 


299 


outcry  because  of  the  copying  of  the  large  manors  in  Eng¬ 
land,  to  the  detriment  of  small  speculators.37 

The  circumstances  of  the  struggle  over  control  of  the 
province  funds,  together  with  Governor  Fletcher’s  attitude 
on  inducting  of  ministers  and  his  constant  neglect  of  im¬ 
portant  bills,  all  tended  to  persuade  the  people  that  in  the 
persons  of  the  royal  Governors  they  could  expect  to  find, 
not  only  no  friend  to  liberty,  but  among  them  some  of 
its  most  dangerous  enemies. 

When  in  1698  the  next  Governor,  Richard  Coote,  Earl  of 
Bellomont,  arrived,  he  found  the  government  in  so  deplora¬ 
ble  a  condition,  according  to  his  own  statement,  that  he 
soon  dissolved  the  Assembly.38  The  fact  that  Bellomont 
and  Fletcher  were  rivals  may  partly  explain  the  dissolution. 
The  old  House  had  been  chiefly  of  Leisler’s  faction;  the 
new  one  under  Bellomont  was  anti-Leislerian,  and  in  this 
respect  in  sympathy  with  the  new  Governor.  This  fact 
may  account  for  his  more  amicable  relations  with  the 
Assembly.  Outside  the  legislature,  however,  Bellomont’s 
way  was  not  so  smooth,  due  to  disturbances  raised  against 
him  by  the  hostile  merchants.39  Bellomont  died  in  office, 
March  5,  1701. 40 

The  next  Governor  was  perhaps  one  of  the  very  worst 
that  ever  held  office  in  the  American  colonies. 

37  Geo.  W.  Schuyler,  Colonial  New  York,  I,  199;  cf.  also  Bellomont  to  Lords 
of  Trade,  N.  Y.  Col .  Doc.,  IV,  320.  Other  interesting  but  uncomplimentary  ref¬ 
erences  to  Fletcher  can  be  found  ibid.,  pp.  322,  442,  456,  479. 

38  Bellomont  to  Lords  of  Trade,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  IV,  302/.  Began  his  admin¬ 
istration  April  2,  1698.  Cf.  List  of  Commissions,  C.  M.  Andrews,  op.  sup.  cit., 
p.  399. 

39  For  list  of  accusations  preferred  by  the  merchants  cf.  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  IV, 
620/.;  cf.  also  Smith,  op.  cit.,  pp.  154/.  Chalmers,  Revolt,  I,  289/.  A  brief  out¬ 
line  of  Bellomont’s  administration  is  given  by  Professor  Channing,  op.  cit.,  II, 
304-307. 

40  During  the  short  interval  after  Bellomont’s  death,  the  government  was 
conducted  by  the  senior  Councillor,  Rip  Van  Dam,  and  later  by  Lieutenant- 
Governor,  John  Nanfan.  C.  M.  Andrews,  op,  cit.,  p.  399. 


300 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Of  all  the  governors  who  brought  English  authority  into  con¬ 
tempt  in  the  Colonies,  none  was  more  thoroughly  disreputable 
than  Edward  Hyde,  Lord  Cornbury,  grandson  of  the  great  Earl 
of  Clarendon,  Cousin-German  to  Queen  Mary  and  Queen  Anne, 
and  himself  later  the  wearer  of  the  ancestral  title.  He  was  a 
spendthrift,  utterly  dishonest,  and  without  morals.41 

Careful  inquiry  into  the  Course  of  Cornbury ’s  administration 
in  New  York  on  the  whole  substantiates  the  legend  which  por¬ 
trays  him  as  a  spendthrift,  a  “grafter,”  a  bigoted,  oppressor,  and 
a  drunken,  vain  fool.42 

History  has  already  exhibited  Lord  Cornbury  as  a  mean  liar, 
a  vulgar  profligate,  a  frivolous  spendthrift,  an  impudent  cheat, 
a  fraudulent  bankrupt,  and  a  detestable  bigot.  He  is  convicted 
of  having  perpetrated  one  of  the  most  outrageous  forgeries  ever 
attempted  by  a  British  nobleman.43 

Cornbury’s  first  Assembly  was  composed  chiefly  of  the 
party  opposed  to  Bellomont.  He  was  therefore  regarded 
for  a  time  as  a  deliverer,  and  harmony  prevailed.44  But 
this  new  feeling  was  short  lived.  Conflict  was  soon  in  prog¬ 
ress  over  the  question  of  proper  use  of  the  funds  of  the 
province. 

In  April,  1703,  by  anticipating  a  sea  attack  from  the 
French,  Cornbury  alarmed  the  House  into  the  appropria¬ 
tion  of  £1,500  for  the  erection  of  two  batteries  at  the  Nar¬ 
rows.  This  money,  however,  seems  to  have  gone  into 
Cornbury’s  own  pocket.  Soon  after  this  the  House  drew 
up  a  bill  compelling  keepers  of  the  revenue  accounts  to 
submit  them,  if  so  requested,  for  examination.45  Later  on, 

41  Channing,  op.  tit.,  II,  308;  cf.  also  Smith,  op.  tit.,  pp.  168jf. 

42  C.  W.  Spencer,  The  Cornbury  Legend,  in  New  York  Hist.  Assoc.,  XIII,  309. 
This  work  is  an  express  attempt  to  investigate  the  truth  of  the  many  charges 
against  Cornbury. 

43  J.  R.  Brodhead  in  Historical  Magazine,  November,  1863,  quoted  by  Winsor, 
op.  tit.,  V,  241.  Cornbury  is  said  to  have  paraded  in  female  attire,  in  order  to  show 
people  what  the  Queen  looked  like. 

44  Smith,  op.  tit.,  I,  173-175. 

45  Assembly  Journal,  April  16,  and  May  22,  1703.  Smith,  op.  tit.,  I,  177.  Chan¬ 
ning,  op.  tit.,  II,  308 ff. 


NEW  YORK 


301 


apparently  driven  to  it  by  fraudulent  practices,  the  House 
petitioned  the  Governor  to  obtain  from  the  Queen  — 

Instructions  to  commissionate  ...  a  principal  Freeholder  and 
Inhabitant  here,  to  be  Treasurer  of  this  Colony,  ...  to  prevent 
the  like  Embezzlement  and  Destruction  of  the  public  monies.46 

The  next  year,  when  Cornbury  requested  further  mili¬ 
tary  appropriations  and  a  renewal  of  the  Queen’s  Revenue 
Act,  the  Assembly  could  not  understand  what  had  become 
of  the  moneys  already  provided,  and  determined  to  grant 
no  more  than  absolute  necessities  until  a  treasurer  of  their 
own  was  permitted.  This  struggle  for  their  own  treasurer 
was  one  of  the  important  movements  in  Cornbury’s  term, 
forming  a  story  in  itself.  The  Queen  subsequently  per¬ 
mitted  the  Assembly  to  name  its  treasurer,  but  only  when 
they  raised  extraordinary  supplies  that  were  not  part  of  the 
standing  and  constant  revenue.47  It  was  not  difficult  there¬ 
after  to  turn  ordinary  grants  into  extraordinary  ones.  This 
permission  became  one  of  the  wedges  employed  by  the  New 
York  Assembly  in  forcing  its  way  to  complete  control  of 
public  expenditures.  Its  policy  in  this  seems  amply  justi¬ 
fied  by  the  obvious  wasting,  misapplication,  and  even  em¬ 
bezzlement  by  officials  of  the  Crown. 

That  Cornbury  himself  was  guilty  of  embezzlement, 
there  is  no  absolute  proof.  The  chief  facts  in  the  case  are 
these:  Of  three  grants  of  extraordinary  funds  made  before 
the  Assembly  had  procured  its  own  treasurer,  the  expendi¬ 
ture  of  one  fourth  of  two  of  them  could  not  be  checked  up 
in  the  books,  except  under  the  vague  and  suspicious 
memorandum  that  it  had  been  employed  at  the  Governor’s 
discretion.  The  third  grant  of  £1,500  for  the  two  batteries 
in  the  Narrows  has  already  been  mentioned.  Whether  it  was 

46  Assembly  Journal,  June  16,  1703. 

47  Assembly  Journal,  April  13  and  19,  1704.  Smith,  op.  cit.,  1, 183,  185.  Spencer, 
op.  cit.,  309;  ef.  also  his  Phases  of  Royal  Government  in  New  York,  pp.  117jf. 


302 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


pocketed  by  the  Governor  or  employed  to  build  a  pleasure 
house  at  Nutton’s  Island  is  not  certain.  It  is,  however, 
certain  that  the  money  was  never  accounted  for  and  that 
the  pleasure  house  was  built  under  suspicious  circumstances. 
Cornbury’s  defense  consisted  in  the  assertion  that  all  ex¬ 
penditures  were  made  on  warrants  approved  by  the  Coun¬ 
cil.  This  was  not  satisfactory  to  the  House.48 

In  the  administration  of  ordinary  grants  also,  there  was 
occasion  for  controversy,  and  reason  for  the  Assembly’s 
caution.49  Corrupt  practices  were  facilitated  by  the  very 
method  prescribed  for  the  application  of  the  province 
funds.  The  Governor  had  practically  a  free  hand.  In 
theory  there  was  ample  check  —  through  the  Council,  the 
receiver-general,  and  the  local  representative  of  the  sur¬ 
veyor  and  auditor  general  of  plantation  revenue.  In  prac¬ 
tice,  however,  these  checks  were  not  efficient.  That  Corn- 
bury  was  actually  guilty  of  robbing  the  province  seems 
evident  from  the  special  investigation  cited  below.490  The 
Governor’s  letter  of  defense  practically  convicts  himself. 
It  furnishes  also  an  indication  of  some  of  the  uses  made  of 
colonial  governorships.  In  it  he  declares  that  if  the  New 
Jersey  Assembly,  which  had  also  been  checking  up  its 
accounts,  had  only  paid  him  his  full  due,  he  would  not 
have  run  into  debt  in  New  York;  and  he  added: 

If  the  Queen  is  not  pleased  to  pay  me,  the  having  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  New  Jersey,  which  I  am  persuaded  the  Queen  intended 
for  my  benefit,  will  prove  my  ruin.50 

Another  affair  that  provoked  opposition  and  contributed 
greatly  to  Cornbury’s  downfall  was  his  prosecution  of  a 

48  Smith,  op.  cit.,  I,  177.  Spencer,  The  Cornbury  Legend,  pp.  31 5jf. 

49  Cf.  the  debates  over  every  money  bill  that  was  proposed.  Assembly  Journal, 
I,  1-200  passim. 

490  Spencer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  312/f. 

50  Quoted  ibid.,  pp.  318jf. 


NEW  YORK 


303 


certain  Presbyterian  minister.51  This  served  for  the  last 

tv 

straw.  Cornbury’s  adherents  by  this  time  could  scarcely 
support  themselves,  much  less  the  Governor.  The  proceed¬ 
ings,  which  took  place  in  the  courts,  had  much  effect  in  the 
legislature  also.  To  a  man,  the  new  Assembly  was  against 
the  Governor.  The  support  bill,  soon  to  expire,  was  abso¬ 
lutely  refused  for  the  next  period;  and  Cornbury’s  request 
for  presents  to  placate  the  Indians  was  met  by  the  significant 
demand  to  see  a  list  of  the  articles  intended,  and  an  estimate 
of  their  cost.52 

With  opposition  at  its  height,  a  House  committee  was 
directed  to  draw  up  a  list  of  grievances  against  the  Governor, 
which  was  done  under  eight  separate  resolutions.53  The 
Queen  listened  to  the  cries  of  the  people;  the  Governor, 
“peculiar,  but  detestable  magot,  ”  54  as  one  of  the  Assembly- 
men  called  him,  was  recalled  in  1708,  and  Lord  Lovelace 
appointed  in  his  stead.55  England  was  unfortunate  in  this 
inefficient  and  disreputable  representative  of  her  authority. 
He  held  office,  during  a  period  that  was  of  unusual  impor¬ 
tance  because  of  its  transitional  and  exceedingly  impression¬ 
able  nature.  In  this  “conquered  province”  especially,  the 
first  experiments  at  royal  government  ought  to  have  received 
most  careful  consideration,  with  reference  particularly  to  the 
character  and  ability  of  the  Governors.  Yet  Sloughter, 

51  This  occurred  in  1707.  The  affair  was  an  event  in  the  colony.  Cf.  Smith,  op. 
cit.,  I,  186-190;  History  Magazine,  November,  1863.  The  minister’s  trial  is  given 
in  Force,  Tracts. 

52  Smith,  ibid.,  pp.  190jf. 

53  Smith,  op.  cit.,  I,  192jf.  The  following  were  the  chief  points  of  remonstrance: 
levying  taxes  and  erecting  courts  of  equity  without  consent  of  Assembly;  laying 
of  imposts,  burdens,  etc.,  on  imports  and  exports;  excessive  sums  “screwed” 
from  masters  of  vessels;  compelling  unjustly  the  payment  of  court  fees;  extor¬ 
tion  of  fees  without  warrant;  interference  with  the  rights  of  freemen  to  “perfect 
and  entire  property  in  their  goods  and  estate;”  appointment  of  coroners  without 
reference  to  choice  of  people. 

64  Lewis  Morris  in  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  V.  38,  quoted  by  Spencer,  ibid.,  p.  310. 

55  Smith,  op.  cit.,  1,  193jf. 


304 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Fletcher,  and  Cornbury  had  made  but  a  sorry  showing.  To 
gross  neglect  and  inefficiency  had  been  added  fraud.  The 
Assembly  could  not  be  expected  to  co-operate  with  such 
executives,  or  be  justly  censured  for  attempting  to  strengthen 
wherever  possible  the  privileges  which  it  believed  to  be 
threatened. 

Bad  as  these  Governors  were,  it  can  hardly  be  said  that 
they  caused  a  weakening  of  whatever  ties  bound  the  colony 
to  England.  The  period  was  too  early  for  that.  There  seems 
no  doubt,  however,  that  they  aroused  and  strengthened  in 
the  Assembly  the  conviction  that  the  representatives  must 
be  very  vigilant  in  defending  their  rights  —  even  against  the 
Crown  appointees  —  and  that  in  their  assertion  they  must 
depend  entirely  upon  themselves.  This  was  the  unhealthy 
attitude  of  the  New  York  Assembly  in  1708.  It  was  to 
develop  into  a  virulent  disease,  resulting  finally  in  permanent 
lesion  of  the  members  that  were  once  united. 

Cornbury’s  successor,  Lord  Lovelace,  lived  only  a  few 
months.  Lieutenant-Governor  Ingoldsby ,  who  followed  him, 
in  methods  too  closely  resembled  his  friends  Sloughter, 
Fletcher,  and  Cornbury  to  effect  harmony.  Then  was  ap¬ 
pointed  Robert  Hunter,  one  of  the  best  royal  Governors  that 
ever  held  office  in  the  colonies,  and  whose  term,  even  in  those 
troublous  times,  lasted  ten  years. 

Governor  Hunter  faced  no  easy  task.  Chiefly  as  the  result 
of  the  maladministration  of  his  three  predecessors,  the  House 
was  now  claiming  the  right  to  determine,  not  only  the  size 
of  appropriations,  but  also  their  time  limit  and  specific 
application.  These  claims  were  felt  to  be  absolutely  neces¬ 
sary  for  protection  against  usurpation  of  privilege  and  even 
of  liberty.  Before  the  end  of  Hunter’s  administration,  still 
further  powers  in  money  matters  were  demanded  by  the 
House. 

In  addition  to  these  undoubted  difficulties  was  the  hostile 
attitude  of  the  House  caused  by  Hunter’s  instructions, 


NEW  YORK 


805 


which  gave  an  unsatisfactory  reply  to  the  remonstrance  of 
1708,  especially  in  regard  to  the  claim  for  a  share  in  the 
establishment  of  courts.  The  other  great  point  in  the 
remonstrance,  stating  the  claim  to  full  and  exclusive  power 
in  levying  taxes,  was  entirely  ignored.56  As  a  result  of  these 
circumstances,  Hunter  could  hardly  hope  to  avoid  trouble, 
especially  on  the  old  question  concerning  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  Assembly’s  power  over  the  funds  of  the 
province. 

Although  the  first  session  opened  with  appearances  of 
harmony,  these  soon  disappeared.  When  Hunter  recom¬ 
mended  a  settlement  for  the  support  of  the  government,  the 
House  readily  complied;  but  in  the  bill  were  laid  down  the 
specific  purposes  to  which  the  money  must  be  applied.  After 
the  Council  had  refused  concurrence,  and  a  probable  deadlock 
threatened,  Hunter  prorogued  the  Assembly,57  possibly  in 
order  to  avoid  conflict. 

At  the  next  session,  however,  in  the  following  spring,  he 
discarded  this  policy  of  conciliation,  and  in  his  opening 
address  threw  into  the  Assembly  a  bomb  that  played  havoc 
with  harmony  during  half  of  his  administration.  The 
address  was  a  veritable  challenge  to  the  House  —  a  blunt 
demand  to  know  just  how  much  the  representatives  intended 
to  do  or  not  to  do  in  support  of  the  government  and  in 
obedience  to  the  instructions  of  the  Queen.  After  reminding 
them  of  "‘Insinuations,  much  repeated  of  late  years,  .  .  . 
that  however  your  resentment  has  fallen  upon  the  Governors , 
it  is  the  Government  you  dislike,  ”  Hunter  then  demanded : 

Will  you  support  her  Majesty’s  Government  in  the  manner 
she  has  been  pleased  to  direct?  or  are  you  resolved  that  Burthen 
shall  lye  still  upon  the  Governor  .  .  .  ? 

Will  you  take  Care  of  the  Debts  of  the  Government?  Or,  to 
increase  my  Sufferings,  must  I  continue  under  the  Torture  of 

56  Winsor,  op.  cit.,  V,  196. 

57  Assembly  Journal,  Nov.  25,  1710. 


306 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  daily  Cries  of  such  as  have  just  Demands  upon  you  and  are 
in  Misery  .  .  .? 

Will  you  take  more  effectual  Care  of  your  own  Safety,  in  that 
of  your  Frontiers  ?  58 

In  reply,  the  Assembly  proceeded  to  question  the  legality 
of  the  session,  and  whether  they  could  sit  as  a  General 
Assembly.  They  voted  in  the  negative,  and  Hunter  dissolved 
them  on  the  next  day.59 

Not  long  after  this,  elated  by  the  success  of  the  expedition 
against  Port  Royal  and  the  coast  of  Nova  Scotia,  the  colonies 
had  on  foot  a  plan  to  proceed  against  Canada.  The  Gov¬ 
ernor,  thinking  perhaps  of  the  supplies  that  would  be  re¬ 
quired,  and  encouraged,  it  may  be,  by  the  advice  of  Nichol¬ 
son,  commander  of  the  land  forces  who  had  come  down  from 
Boston  in  June,  convoked  a  new  Assembly.  Judging  from 
the  re-election  of  the  same  members,60  the  interval  of  rest 
and  cessation  of  dispute  had  not  changed  the  attitude  of  the 
people.  This  fact  would  imply  further  opposition  to  revenue 
bills.  However,  the  conquest  of  Canada  was  dearly  hoped 
for,  and  supplies  were  readily  granted.  Governor  Hunter 
then  recommended  early  attention  to  other  pressing  matters, 
mentioning  “the  support  of  the  Government,  the  public 
Debts  and  the  Security  of  .  .  .  Frontiers.”61 

The  expedition  failed,  and  the  result  was  greater  dis¬ 
satisfaction  and  an  increase  of  the  public  debt. 

At  the  next  session  Hunter  made  a  similar  appeal.  Im¬ 
mediately  the  Assembly  passed  several  bills,  which  were 
amended  by  the  Council.  But  the  House  rejected  the 
changes,  and  declared  that  the  Council,  in  the  case  of  money 
bills,  had  not  even  the  power  of  amendment.  The  Council, 

58  Assembly  Journal ,  I,  287^F. 

59  Assembly  Journal ,  I,  288,  entries  for  April  13,  17,  19,  and  20,  1711. 

60  Smith,  op.  cit.,  I,  213#“.  Assembly  Journal ,  I,  289.  Convened  July  2,  1711. 
There  was  only  one  new  member.  Cf.  Journal ,  I,  276,  289,  where  lists  are  given. 

61  Assembly  Journal,  I,  290,  294,  passim,  297. 


NEW  YORK 


307 


on  its  part,  “knew  of  no  Power  the  Crown  has  given  to  the 
Assembly  to  take  the  Right  from  the  Council  by  any  Resolves 
of  theirs.”  To  which  the  Assembly  replied: 

'Tis  true,  the  share  the  Council  have  (if  any)  in  the  Legisla¬ 
tion  [comes]  only  from  the  meer  Pleasure  of  the  Prince  .  .  .  On 
the  contrary,  the  inherent  Right  the  Assembly  have  to  dispose  of 
the  money  of  the  Freemen  of  this  Colony,  does  not  proceed  from 
any  Commission,  Letters  Patent  or  other.  Grant  from  the  Crown, 
but  from  the  free  Choice  and  Election  of  the  People;  who  ought 
not  to  be  divested  of  their  Property  (nor  justly  can)  without 
their  consent.62 

This  was  in  1711,  half  a  century  before  James  Otis  and 
Patrick  Henry  aroused  the  colonists  with  the  self-same 
claims.  While  the  bickering  thus  continued,  the  Assembly 
added  to  these  difficulties  another,  namely,  that  regarding 
the  establishment  of  courts  of  equity  by  the  Governor  and 
Council  alone.  And  on  the  same  day  they  returned  another 
appropriation  bill  to  the  Council  “  with  the  reiterated 
Resolve  of  the  House  not  to  admit  of  any  Amendment  to 
money  bills”.63 

Meanwhile,  the  province  was  in  danger,  the  people  were 
crying  for  payment  of  debts  owed  by  the  government,  and 
the  officers  of  the  government  were  unpaid  or  ill  paid,  —  all 
due  to  the  stand  taken  by  the  House  in  its  determination  to 
secure  complete  control  of  financial  measures.  In  a  letter 
written  about  this  time,  Governor  Hunter  declared: 

Now  the  mask  is  thrown  off;  they  have  call’d  in  question  the 
Council’s  share  in  the  legislation,  trump’d  up  an  inherent  right, 
declared  the  powers  granted  by  her  Majesty’s  letters  patent  to 
be  against  law,  and  have  hut  one  short  step  to  make  what  I  am  un¬ 
willing  to  name.Gi 

62  Assembly  Journal,  I,  298,  299-304,  306,  (the  quotation)  307jf. 

63  Ibid.,  pp.  307/f. 

64  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  V,  296. 


308 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


There  was  at  that  time  an  adjournment  lasting  nearly  six 
months.65  Hunter  met  the  Assembly  again  on  April  30,  1712. 
Thus  far  during  the  two  years  of  his  administration,  not  one 
farthing  had  been  granted  for  support  of  the  government. 
The  Governor  now  laid  this  matter  before  the  House,  quoting 
at  the  same  time  a  decision  of  the  Lords  Commissioners  of 
Trade  and  Plantations,  which  declared  as  ill  founded  the 
claim  for  complete  control  of  the  public  funds. 

After  considering  this  address  for  a  full  month,  the  House 
finally  passed,  on  May  30,  a  bill  “paying  8,025  Ounces  of 
Plate  to  his  Excellency,  and  are  extremely  pleased  they  have 
had  an  opportunity  in  this  Manner  to  demonstrate  their 
affections.  .  .  . 

Occurring  when  it  did,  this  statement  is  somewhat  strange. 
Hunter  had  been  waiting  two  years,  during  which  there  had 
surely  been  ample  “opportunity  ”  for  the  House  to  “demon¬ 
strate  its  affections.”  The  amount  provided  in  this  bill  was 
to  cover  the  Governor’s  salary;  firewood  and  candles  for  the 
garrisons  in  New  York  and  Albany;  salary  of  smith  resident 
among  Indians,  and  of  interpreter;  and  defrayal  of  “other 
contingent  charges  of  the  Government.”  Yet  Hunter 
thanked  them  heartily  in  an  address  that  reads  like  a 
congratulation . 66 

A  few  months  after  this,  in  the  fall  of  1712,  conflict  was 
renewed  on  the  question  of  control  over  the  public  moneys. 
Hunter  reminded  the  House  of  his  instructions  — 

.  .  .  not  to  suffer  any  public  Money  whatsoever,  to  be  issued 
or  disposed  of  otherwise  than  by  a  Warrant,  under  (his)  Hand, 
by  and  with  the  Advice  and  Consent  of  the  Council.67 

He  then  made  a  proposition  designed  at  once  to  satisfy 
the  Assembly  and  to  win  them  to  obedience  to  instructions. 

65  Prorogued  Nov.  24,  1711;  convened  April  30,  1712.  Cf.  Journal,  I,  309. 

66  Assembly  Journal,  I,  310-314,  entries  for  May  17  and  31,  1712,  especially 
pp.  312,  314. 

67  Assembly  Journal,  I,  321. 


NEW  YORK 


309 


It  consisted  chiefly  in  granting  to  them  a  rather  strong 
check  on  expenditures  by  leaving  in  their  hands  the  auditing 
of  accounts.  The  only  other  way  out  of  the  difficulty  was 
for  himself  to  break  the  royal  instructions  and  grant  to  the 
House  the  much  desired  control.  After  six  weeks  of  con¬ 
sideration  on  this  proposal,  a  bill  was  passed  granting  support 
of  the  government  for  a  period  of  less  than  a  year,  and 
specifying  the  application  of  the  appropriations.68  Thus, 
despite  the  royal  instructions,  the  House  was  still  insisting 
on  complete  control  of  the  moneys.  Events  occurring  after 
the  passage  of  this  bill  are  summed  up  a  few  days  later  in  the 
following  entry  in  the  Assembly  Journal: 

Resolved,  That  this  House  cannot  agree  to  a  conference  with 
the  Council,  on  the  subject  Matter  of  the  Amendments  to  a 
Money  Bill.69 

The  Governor’s  emphasis  on  his  instructions  had  been  in 
vain ! 

At  the  next  session,  held  about  six  months  later,70  this  story 
was  repeated.  The  Governor  presented  his  instructions;  the 
House  ignored  them.  To  be  obliged  to  pay,  and  to  submit 
to  a  method  of  payment  was  not  to  be  tolerated.  The  right 
to  impose  such  obligation  was  vested  solely  in  the  people, 
and  in  no  other  power. 

Thus  isolated  facts  of  controversy  on  money  matters  were 
developing  into  a  theory ,  or  a  political  philosophy  in  which 
the  Assembly  began  to  make  its  demands  not  simply  as  a 
matter  of  expedience,  i.e.,  for  protection  against  misapplica¬ 
tion  and  fraud,  but  as  founded  on  a  right  which  no  power 
could  gainsay. 

During  this  session  Hunter  placed  the  whole  issue  neatly 
before  the  House  in  one  sentence: 

68  Ibid.,  II,  321-328.  The  bill  was  passed  by  House  on  Nov.  7,  1712.  It  pro¬ 
vided  support  until  June  13,  1713.  Cf.  Journal,  I,  330. 

69  Assembly  Journal,  I,  330,  Nov.  14,  1712. 

70  Begun  May  12,  1713.  Cf.  ibid.,  332. 


310 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Are  you  resolved  to  submit  to  such  Rules  of  Government,  as 
are  prescribed  in  her  Majesty’s  Letters  Patent  and  Instructions?  71 

The  House  resolved  to  “consider”  this  question.  It  was 
a  month,  however,  before  the  final  decision  came,  implied 
in  a  bill  that  granted  £2,800  toward  the  support  of  the 
government  for  one  year.  The  instructions  required  perma¬ 
nent  support;  the  last  appropriation  had  been  for  five  years; 
now  the  grant  was  limited  to  one.  The  apparent  purpose 
was  to  make  the  Governor  from  year  to  year  dependent  upon 
the  will  of  the  House.  Bv  the  same  bill  was  also  determined 

t/ 

the  specific  application  of  the  funds  and  the  method  of 
expenditure.  Moreover,  the  receiver-general  was  to  be 
accountable,  not  only  to  the  Governor  and  Council,  but  to 
the  House  also.  The  Council,  strange  to  say,  made  no  objec¬ 
tion  to  the  bill  in  this  form.72  Thus  was  secured  another 
advantage  by  the  House.  Complete  victory  was  not  far  off. 

In  the  following  year,  1714,  after  some  little  friction  over 
the  payment  of  the  public  debts,  the  necessary  bills  were 
passed.73  In  that  same  year  also,  the  death  of  Queen  Anne 
caused  disturbance  in  the  already  unstable  policy  of  the  home 
government  regarding  the  colonies.  As  is  well  known,  that 
policy  was  scarcely  ever  settled,  and  it  almost  invariably 
solved  its  problems  by  compromise  —  usually  to  the  detri¬ 
ment  of  the  authority  of  the  ministry.  Possibly  Governor 
Hunter  felt  that  this  was  the  time  to  yield  to  the  Assembly’s 
demands.  At  the  moment,  the  province  owed  him  upwards 
of  £5,000  in  salary.74  Moreover,  the  House  was  still  as 
insistent  as  ever  in  its  struggle  for  full  and  exclusive  control 
of  the  public  funds.  Then,  in  the  summer  of  the  next  year, 
1715,  came  the  familiar  denouement  of  this  story  of  the 

71  Assembly  Journal,  I,  333. 

72  Ibid.,  p.  339,  June  26,  1713.  Council  Minutes  (in  Assembly  Journal),  I,  360, 
July  1,  1713. 

73  Assembly  Journal,  I,  345,  366. 

74  Hunter  to  Earl  of  Stair  in  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  V,  455. 


NEW  YORK 


311 


New  York  Assembly  versus  the  prerogative,  when  Governor 
Hunter  was  finally  forced  to  yield  to  its  demands.  The  fact 
that  he  was  forced  to  yield  does  not  appear  from  the  records. 
Therein  everything  reads  smoothly;  money  was  appropri¬ 
ated,  and  bills  drawn  up  and  passed  without  apparent 
difficulty.  That  there  was  friction,  however,  is  evident  from 
the  Governor’s  letters  to  the  Lords  of  Trade.75  Some  details 
of  this  last  struggle  and  of  the  victory  will  now  be  given. 

The  session  was  opened  by  the  Governor  with  an  address 
urging  provision  for  a  depleted  treasury,  and  renewal  of  the 
nearly  expired  bill  for  support  of  the  government.  The 
House,  paying  no  heed,  immediately  turned  to  a  resolve 
affecting  the  naturalization  of  all  foreign  Protestants.  Judg¬ 
ing  from  the  dispatch  with  which  this  measure  was  handled, 
success  was  very  earnestly  desired.  The  bill  passed  the 
Council  without  a  break  on  June  18,  1715. 76  This  fact  is 
interesting,  because  from  Hunter’s  correspondence  with  the 
Lords  of  Trade  it  is  clear  that  he  was  not  in  favor  of  its 
adoption.77  Moreover,  on  the  very  day  that  it  passed  the 
Council,  the  House  considered  a  resolve  for  granting  a  five 
year  support  bill.  Apparently  the  House  was  making  this 
naturalization  measure  the  price  to  be  paid  for  the  support 
bill.  Although  in  the  Journal  there  appears  not  one  hint  of 
friction,  the  following  excerpt  from  Hunter’s  letter  tells  the 
story  of  a  silent,  determined  battle  waged  by  the  Assembly. 

Finding  as  I  had  the  honour  to  inform  your  Lordships  in  my 
last,  that  the  Naturalization  Bill  was  the  block  laid  in  the  way 
of  the  revenue,  (and  having  objected  to  it  —  and  suggested  a 
recourse  to  the  home  government  for  authority  to  pass  it,)  I  say, 
having  strongly  insisted  on  these  methods  to  no  purpose,  I  at 

75  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  V,  416,  458,  and  'passim. 

76  Assembly  Journal,  I,  368,  369. 

77  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  V,  416.  Edict  of  Nantes  had  been  revoked  in  1685.  These 
aliens  were  probably  Huguenots  and  Palatines  in  whom  Hunter  had  probably 
little  interest. 


312 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


last  asked  them  what  they  would  do  for  the  Government  if  I 
should  pass  it  in  their  way,  since  they  did  not  like  mine  .  .  . 
they  at  last  agreed  that  they  would  settle  a  sufficient  Revenue  for 
five  years  on  that  condition ,  .  .  . 

If  I  have  done  amiss,  I  am  sorry  for  it  but  what  was  there 
left  for  me  to  do.  I  have  been  struggling  hard  for  bread  itself 
for  five  years,  to  no  effect,  and  for  four  of  them  unpity'd  .  .  .78 

The  House  had  finally  won  its  every  demand.  As  far  as 
Governor  Hunter  was  concerned,  it  now  possessed  full  and 
exclusive  power  over  the  size,  duration,  application,  auditing, 
and  method  of  disbursement  of  appropriations.  With  this 
signal  victory,  conflict  in  Hunter’s  time  seems  to  have  ceased. 

In  spite  of  the  very  serious  troubles  during  his  adminis¬ 
tration,  and  of  the  final  defeat  of  the  prerogative  to  which  he 
yielded,  Governor  Robert  Hunter  was,  in  all  his  relations  with 
Assemblies,  a  character  worthy  of  admiration.  There  was  no 
suspicion  of  fraud  or  of  insincerity.  He  was  a  loyal  servant 
of  the  Crown,  although  his  best  efforts  to  uphold  the  royal 
instructions  failed.  Within  the  province  he  was  not  unliked. 
Toward  the  end  of  his  administration  when  he  contemplated 
a  return  to  England,  there  was  a  popular  demonstration  in 
his  honor,  and  a  most  adulatory  address  from  the  Assembly 
—  the  latter  supposed  by  some  to  have  been  drawn  up  by 
his  own  friends.  Nearly  every  writer,  when  mentioning  this 
address,  speaks  of  its  reference  to  Governor  Hunter  as  a 
4 ‘prudent  magistrate  and  affectionate  father.”  79 

The  “spirit  of  the  constitution”  insisted  upon  during 
Robert  Hunter’s  administration  was  the  same  that  was 
evident  during  the  days  of  William  III.  Parliament  had 
then  asserted  its  rights  by  reason  of  its  representation  of  the 
people.  These  rights  came  not  from  the  Crown,  but  from 
the  people.  So,  after  this  long-drawn-out  conflict,  the 
executive  was  left  with  no  power  over  monies  —  even  as  to 

78  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  V,  416;  cf.  also  p.  459. 

79  Assembly  Journal,  I,  437. 


NEW  YORK 


313 


his  discretionary  disbursement  of  them.  That  power  had 
reverted  to  the  people.  The  Governor  received  what  the 
Assembly  granted;  he  administered  it  according  to  the 
Assembly’s  instructions.  Thus  was  established  another  tenet 
in  the  evolution  of  a  philosophy  of  independence  of  the 
prerogative,  and  indirectly  of  the  Crown.  It  might  almost 
be  said  that  during  the  years  between  1710  and  1720,  the 
Assembly  ceased  to  look  wholly  to  England  for  confirmation 
of  whatever  rights  it  might  claim,  and  that  it  then  began  to 
see  within  itself  the  supreme  arbiter  of  questions  concerning 
those  rights,  and  of  all  disputes  affecting  the  enlarging 
liberties  of  the  people. 

The  Assembly’s  victory  in  Hunter’s  governorship  may 
explain  the  period  of  temporary  peace  that  followed.  For 
more  than  five  years  the  next  Governor,  William  Burnet 
(1720-1728),  had  little  difficulty.  This  may  have  decided 
him  to  delay  as  long  as  possible  a  new  election  —  which 
might  change  the  personnel  of  so  peaceful  an  Assembly. 
Trouble  arose,  however,  partly  over  this  very  policy.  In 
1726  the  members  passed  measures  providing  for  more 
frequent  election,  only  to  see  them  disallowed  in  England. 
When  in  the  following  year  the  people  themselves  began  to 
agitate  for  a  new  election,  the  House  proceeded  to  aid  in  the 
agitation  by  wielding  the  appropriations  whip.  Governor 
Burnet  then  had  difficulty  in  securing  a  support  bill  for  three 
years,  whereas  Hunter’s  Assembly  had  granted  it  for 
five.80 

This  curtailment  of  support  was  in  reality  only  one  incident 
in  a  general  reopening  of  hostilities  with  the  royal  Governors. 
After  ten  years  of  practical  harmony,  discord  was  about  to 
begin.  In  addition  to  keeping  the  same  Assembly  in  existence 

80  Smith,  op.  cit.,  I,  271.  Channing,  op.  cit.,  II,  298.  It  was  not  until  1743 
that  a  law  called  the  Septennial  Act,  providing  for  frequency  of  election,  was  passed. 
Even  then  the  Governor  could  prolong  the  life  of  an  Assembly  for  seven  years. 


314 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


for  so  many  years,  there  were  other  causes  of  the  increasing 
disaffection  in  Burnet’s  time. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  refusal  to  the  Assembly  of 
a  voice  in  the  erection  of  a  court  of  equity  had  always  been  a 
grievance.  Governor  Burnet  increased  the  difficulty.  He 
liked  nothing  better  than  to  exercise  the  office  of  chancellor 
in  this  court,  in  spite  of  his  lack  of  legal  training,  and  of  his 
method,  on  which  he  actually  prided  himself,  of  acting  first 
and  thinking  afterward.  This,  with  the  exorbitant  fees  and 
the  increasing  number  of  injustices,  was  in  itself  more  than 
sufficient  to  irritate  the  Assembly.81 

Burnet’s  attitude  also  in  a  dispute  among  the  French 
Protestants  of  the  city  regarding  the  dismissal  of  one  of  their 
ministers  lost  him  many  friends  in  both  province  and  Assem¬ 
bly.82  Naturally  a  son  of  the  Bishop  of  London  would  be 
prone  to  have  very  pronounced  views,  which  were  almost 
certain  to  cause  trouble  in  a  non-Anglican  atmosphere. 

All  these  incidents  tended  to  increase  the  unpopularity 
of  the  Governor.  When,  toward  the  end  of  his  term,  an 
election  was  finally  held,  every  new  member  was  against  him. 
The  long  continuance  of  the  previous  Assembly,  the  chancery 
question,  the  affair  of  the  French  church,  and  the  prohibition 
of  trade  with  Canada  83  had  produced  their  effect.  The  now 
recalcitrant  Assembly  soon  drew  up  resolutions  against  the 
court  of  chancery,  and  soon  after  Burnet  dissolved  them.84 
He  was  later  sent,  in  punishment  for  certain  political  offenses, 
to  govern  the  refractory  colony  of  Massachusetts.85 

After  his  departure  there  was  a  period  of  peace  for  three 
years,  during  which  John  Montgomerie  was  Governor,  1728- 
1731.  Aside  from  an  occasional  minor  dispute  over  fees  and 

81  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  248,  278jf. 

82  Ibid.,  pp.  270-273. 

83  Ibid.,  pp.  254-270.  A  measure  detested  by  the  merchants,  who  therefore 
opposed  Burnet  during  his  administration. 

84  Ibid.,  pp.  274 jf. 

85  Cf.  supra,  chapter  on  Massachusetts,  footnote. 


NEW  YORK 


315 


salaries  of  officials,  Mongtomerie  had  little  trouble.  He 
dissolved  the  Assembly  and  kept  aloof  as  much  as  possible 
from  chancery  business.86 

The  next  incumbent,  William  Cosby,  held  office  for  four 
years,  1732-1736.  By  his  efforts  in  England  to  prevent  the 
passage  of  a  sugar  act  disadvantageous  to  the  province  he 
had  rendered  valuable  and  highly  appreciated  service  to  the 
New  York  colony,  and  therefore  had  prospects  of  a  peaceful 
administration.  Hence  his  opening  address  expressed  great 
confidence  that  the  Assembly  would  grant  ample  support. 
The  reply,  profuse  in  declarations  of  gratitude  for  his  serv¬ 
ices,  made  no  mention  of  support.  A  repetition  of  the  request 
brought  a  six  year  bill,  due  probably  to  the  great  fear  of  the 
Sugar  Act  with  its  discriminations.87  Thus  the  first  ripple 
spread  itself  out  into  nothing  —  but  it  was  only  the  first. 
Cosby’s  feeling  is  shown  in  his  sarcastic  comment  on  the 
amount  of  compensation  subsequently  granted  to  him  for 
his  part  in  the  sugar  affair.  The  House  had  voted  him  £750 
sterling. 

Damn  them,  why  did  they  not  add  shillings  and  pence!  Do 
they  think  I  came  from  England  for  money?  I’ll  make  them 
know  better. 

This  contemptuous  attitude  gained  him  £250  extra,  but 
lost  him  the  Assembly’s  esteem  and  made  the  beginning  of 
one  of  the  most  disturbed  administrations  in  New  York 
colonial  historv.88 

Although  “no  Man  was  ever  so  universally  hated”  as 
Governor  Cosby,  and  although  by  his  arbitrary  measures 
and  manner  he  so  exasperated  the  people  that  his  life  was  not 
safe  among  them,  nevertheless  with  the  Assembly  he  was 

86  Assembly  Journal,  I,  448,  580,  585,  646,  700.  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  V,  878/.,  885. 
Smith,  op.  cit.,  I,  281-288. 

87  Assembly  Journal,  I,  633.  For  Sugar  Act  see  Channing,  op.  cit.,  II,  516/. 

88  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  1-3. 


316 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


for  long  without  a  breach.  In  fact,  in  the  beginning  there 
had  been  positive  rejoicing  at  his  coming.89 

The  great  event  that  occurred  during  Cosby’s  term  — 
which  is  often  said  to  have  aroused  a  spirit  similar  to  that  of 
1776  with  Andrew  Hamilton  in  the  place  of  James  Otis  — 
was  the  Zenger  trial.90  This  episode,  thoroughly  important 
in  other  respects,  comes  only  indirectly  within  the  scope  of 
this  study  of  the  relations  between  Governor  and  Assembly. 
The  trial,  with  its  defiant  demonstrations  reacting  against 
the  Governor,  and  its  far-reaching  result  in  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  liberty  of  the  press  in  New  York,  affected  these 
relations  in  a  way  now  to  be  described. 

The  Council,  which  represented  in  everything  the  interests 
of  the  Governor,  suggested  to  the  Assembly  the  formation 
of  a  joint  committee  to  examine  into  several  issues  of  Zenger’ s 
paper,  the  New  York  Weekly  Journal , 

.  .  .  which  had  printed  alleged  libels  against  the  Governor, 
and  also  into  several  other  scurrilous  Papers,  tending  to  alienate 
the  Affections  of  the  People  of  this  Province,  from  his  Majesty’s 
Government. 

This  was  a  preliminary  to  leading  the  House  to  take  sides 
in  the  case.  The  Council  next  sent  down  for  concurrence  a 
measure  providing  for  the  public  burning  by  the  hangman 
of  certain  of  the  papers  ‘ 4  reflecting  on  the  most  considerable 
Persons”  —  meaning  Cosby  and  his  supporters.  The  House, 
according  to  its  usual  wary  custom,  resolved  to  “consider” 
the  matter,  and  later  voted  that  it  lay  on  the  table,  which  it 
did,  never  to  be  disturbed.91  Thus  conflict  on  this  score 
was  avoided,  but  it  is  evident  that  the  House  was  by  no 
means  anxious  to  enlist  openly  on  the  Governor’s  side. 

89  Letter  of  Lewis  Morris  to  .  .  .  Dec.  15,  1733,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  V,  959. 
Eugene  Lawrence,  Wilson  Memorial  History  of  N.  Y.  City,  II,  209  (an  account 
completely  biased  in  favor  of  the  colony). 

90  For  good  account  cf.  Channing,  op.  cit.  II,  483-488;  also  Smith,  op.cit.  II,  3-8. 

91  Assembly  Journal,  pp.  671^f.  Journal  makes  no  further  reference  to  it. 


NEW  YORK 


317 


A  further  indication  of  the  trend  of  feeling  in  the  Assembly 
was  the  proposal  made  in  the  third  year  of  Cosby’s  adminis¬ 
tration  to  have  the  colony  represented  in  England  by  an 
agent  “independent  of  the  Governor.”92 

In  Governor  Cosby’s  administration,  the  old  subject  of 
dispute,  support  of  the  government,  was  not  so  much  in 
evidence.  The  matter  of  issuing  bills  of  credit  came  up  once, 
caused  some  friction,  but  was  amicably  approved  by  the 
Governor,  although  such  approval  violated  his  instruc¬ 
tions.93 

The  three  outstanding  causes  of  trouble  in  Cosby’s 
administration  had  to  do  with  the  chancery  court,  the 
Governor’s  sitting  as  a  member  of  the  Council,  and  prolonged 
sessions  of  the  same  Assembly. 

Opposition  to  the  establishment,  without  consent  of  the 
Assembly,  of  a  court  of  equity,  with  the  Governor  as  chan¬ 
cellor,  had  long  existed  in  the  colony.  Governor  Burnet’s 
practice  of  conducting  them  on  every  possible  occasion  has 
already  been  noted.  In  Hunter’s  time  also  the  Assembly 
had  strongly  protested,  claiming  that  the  establishment  of 
such  courts  without  consent  of  the  representatives  was 
illegal.94  This  opposition  became  even  more  pronounced 
during  Cosby’s  administration,  with  the  Zenger  trial  no 
doubt  lending  greater  weight  to  the  Assembly’s  conviction 
of  the  ill  results  of  the  system.95 

The  subject  came  up,  indirectly,  during  the  first  year, 
through  a  resolution  giving  to  the  Assembly  the  right  to 
regulate  fees  of  law  practitioners.  This  resolution  was 

92  Ibid.,  pp.  G35,  646,  gives  entries  granting  five  year  support,  with  yearly 
salary  to  Governor  of  £1,565,  and  making  grants  also  for  other  expressly  men¬ 
tioned  purposes. 

93  Proposed  issue  £12,000.  Cf.  Journal,  I,  678,  679,  680.  Cosby  at  first  objected; 
Council  also  obstructed.  But  on  condition  that  House  would  “explain”  to  the 
ministry,  Cosby  approved,  a  usual  procedure  in  such  cases. 

94  N.  V.  Col.  Doc.,  V,  295,  298,  330,  339,  446,  847. 

95  In  presiding  at  this  trial  the  Governor  was  trying  a  case  in  which  he  him¬ 
self  was  interested.  See  the  accounts  referred  to  supra,  footnote  90. 


318 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


subsequently  indorsed  by  a  petition  to  the  same  effect  from 

the  inhabitants  of  three  counties.  Then  came  the  celebrated 

* 

presentation  by  two  lawyers  before  the  Assembly  of  the 
arguments  for  and  against  the  establishment  of  a  court  of 
equity  in  the  colony,  and  a  discussion  also  as  to  wherein  was 
vested  the  right  of  erection.  Each  advocate  spoke  for  about 
three  hours.  Although  on  this  point  there  was  no  open  con¬ 
troversy  with  the  Governor,  nevertheless  differences  existed. 
Cosby  was  absolutely  in  favor  of  his  chancery  power,  the 
Assembly  absolutely  against  it.96 

The  same  subject  came  up,  also  indirectly,  in  the  following 
year,  having  been  occasioned  by  the  annexation  of  part  of 
Connecticut.  In  his  capacity  of  chancellor,  a  bill  had  come 
before  the  Governor  making  void  a  patent  for  some  fifty 
thousand  acres.  A  petition,  signed  by  fifty  of  the  pro¬ 
prietors,  was  therefore  presented  to  the  Assembly,  praying 
that  action  be  taken  to  prevent  proceedings  of  this  nature, 
so  dangerous  to  many  proprietors  and  to  the  “Liberties  and 
Properties  of  the  People  in  General.”  97  The  report  of 
the  committee  on  the  case,  approved  by  the  House,  was  a 
positive  subversion  of  Cosby’s  claim.  Such  a  court,  it  read 
in  part, 

.  .  .  in  the  Hands,  or  under  the  Exercise  of  a  Governor, 
without  consent  in  the  General  Assembly,  is  contrary  to  the 
Law,  unwarrantable,  etc.98 

As  long  as  this  grievance  was  kept  in  the  foreground,  there 
could  hardly  be  harmony  in  the  relations  between  Governor 
and  Assembly. 

The  third  cause  of  disturbance  was  the  prolonged  session 
of  the  same  Assembly.  Some  account  of  Cosby’s  long 

96  Assembly  Journal,  I,  637,  661/T.,  Aug.  23,  1732,  and  May,  1734.  Advocates 
were  Murray  and  Smith,  for  and  against,  respectively. 

97  Assembly  Journal,  683,  Oct.  21,  1735. 

98  Assembly  Journal,  p.  687,  Nov.  6,  1735. 


NEW  YORK 


319 


adjournments  may  be  interesting.  The  first  lasted  a  full 
year."  The  ensuing  session  had  been  in  progress  scarcely 
two  weeks  when  he  suggested  a  further  adjournment  for 
six  months.100  About  the  same  time  was  passed  a  bill  for 
more  frequent  elections.101  The  next  adjournment  was 
requested  by  the  House  itself,  to  last  six  weeks,  “until  after 
harvest  time.”  Cosby,  however,  was  gracious  and  extended 
the  recess  for  almost  half  a  year.102  During  the  next  meeting 
the  Assembly  unanimously  agreed  on  a  request  for  dissolu¬ 
tion.  Tersely  the  Governor  informed  them  that  he  would 
give  the  order  whenever  he  saw  fit,  and  found  it  “conducive 
to  his  Majesty’s  Service,  and  for  the  Benefit  of  this  Prov¬ 
ince.”  103  And  he  pronounced  another  half  year  of  adjourn¬ 
ment,  taking  care  to  prolong  it  for  twice  that  time.104 

The  people  were  now  exasperated  at  being  constantly 
foiled  in  their  desire  for  an  election.  A  petition  came  to  the 
Assembly  complaining  of  that  grievance,  and  declaring 
“frequent  Elections  a  most  valuable  Privilege;  pray,  will 
they  endeavor  to  become  dissolved?”  Only  too  glad  to 
comply,  the  members  presented,  together  with  this  petition, 
their  own  unanimous  request  for  dissolution.  Cosby,  how¬ 
ever,  repeated  almost  verbatim  his  previous  grandiose 
refusal.  Three  days  later  still  another  protest  came  from 
the  people.105  The  difficulty  was  finally  settled  by  the  death 
of  the  Governor.  Cosby  had  kept  the  same  Assembly  in 
existence  during  the  whole  of  his  administration,  without 
once  giving  to  the  people  an  opportunity  of  exercising  a 
privilege  most  highly  prized  at  all  times,  and  at  that  time 

99  Oct.  15,  1732,  to  Oct.  14,  1733.  Cf.  ibid.,  under  dates  cited. 

100  Sat  from  Oct.  14  to  Nov.  1,  1733;  adjourned  until  April,  1734.  Cf.  ibid., 
p.  653. 

101  Assembly  Journal,  I,  660,  668,  June  21,  1734. 

102  From  June  22,  1734,  to  October.  Cf.  Ibid.,  p.  669. 

103  Ibid.,  pp.  679/f. 

104  Nov.  28,  1734,  to  April,  1735.  Cf.  ibid.,  p.  681.  Then  from  April,  1735, 
until  the  following  October.  Cf.  ibid. 

105  Assembly  Journal,  I,  68 6jf.,  Nov.  4  and  7,  1735. 


320 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


most  earnestly  desired  and  frequently  requested.  The 
resentment  in  this  regard  may  have  been  heightened  by 
remembrance  of  the  popular  complaints  in  the  time  of  the 
Stuarts.  Burnet  and  Cosby,  with  their  long-lived  Assemblies, 
might  well  have  been  ominous  reminders  of  James  I,  and 

i 

especially  of  Charles  I  and  the  “Long  Parliament. ” 

The  other  great  cause  of  conflict  during  Cosby’s  incum¬ 
bency  came  from  his  insistence  upon  sitting  as  a  member 
of  the  Council,  with  a  vote  in  its  proceedings.  After  a 
protest  from  the  House  had  failed  to  end  that  abuse,  it  was 
ultimately  corrected  by  an  order  from  the  Board  of  Trade.106 
Fully  to  appreciate  the  reasons  for  the  protest,  it  is  necessary 
to  recall  the  constitution  of  the  government.  According  to 
the  Governor’s  commission,  the  legislative  department  was 
to  consist  of  three  branches  —  the  Governor,  as  executive, 
the  legislative  Council,  and  the  Assembly.  The  difficulty 
and  the  abuses  in  the  system  arose  from  the  fact  that  the 
Council  sat  in  a  twofold  capacity  —  as  advisory  board  to 
the  Governor  and  as  part  of  the  legislature.  The  abuse 
came  when  the  Governor  took  part  in  the  deliberations  of 
the  Council  while  acting  in  its  legislative  capacity.  Thus 
as  a  member  of  the  Council  he  had  one  vote,  as  executive 
he  had  final  veto  power,  and  in  case  of  tie  he  cast  the 
deciding  ballot.  Always  two,  and  sometimes  three,  votes 
were  at  his  command.  The  opportunity  for  abuse  is  evident. 
In  1733  Governor  Cosby  was  forbidden,  in  the  order  above 
mentioned,  thus  to  violate  the  constitution  of  the  colony.107 

The  following  observation,  taken  from  Wilson’s  Memorial 
History  of  New  York  City,108  professes  to  give  an  indication 
of  the  general  feeling  in  the  colony  about  this  period.  After 
a  summary  of  preceding  terms,  in  which  Sloughter  is 
characterized  as  a  “drunkard  and  rogue,”  Fletcher  “but 

106  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  V,  887;  VI,  39. 

107  N.  Y.  Legislative  Council  Journal,  Introd.,  XXVII,  by  E.  B.  O’Callaghan. 

108  Vol.  II,  p.  212;  cf.  also  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  V,  975/. 


NEW  YORK 


321 


little  better,”  Cornbury  a  “dissolute  and  shameless  tyrant,” 
Burnet  “tactless,  etc.,”  and  Montgomerie  as  “the  only 
tolerable  Governor  in  the  list,”  the  author  adds: 

The  tyranny  of  the  royal  governors  had  already  produced  in 
New  York  a  party  not  far  removed  from  complete  republicanism 
and  independence.  Long  before  the  Revolution,  Professor  Kalm 
and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Burnaby  assure  us,  the  people  were  already 
looking  forward  to  a  separation  from  their  distant  parent  land. 

Whether  or  no,  in  its  strict  sense,  the  observation  is  true, 
it  is  safe  at  least  to  say  that  after  Governor  Cosby’s  adminis¬ 
tration,  whatever  feelings  of  hostility  there  may  have  been 
toward  England,  and  whatever  anticipations  of  separation 
may  have  existed,  were  greatly  augmented.  The  people, 
aroused  by  the  fraud  and  the  inefficiency  of  representatives 
of  superimposed  sovereignty,  were  beginning  to  fret.  The 
limits  of  their  privileges  in  self-government  were  being 
minutely  examined  by  them,  and  their  interpretation 
widened  as  far  as  possible.  Abuse  of  these  privileges  had 
provoked  a  theory  of  independence,  in  which  theory  the  very 
word  was  fast  coming  to  have  the  same  meaning  as  the  word 
“rights”  —  a  development  hardly  compatible  with  loyalty 
and  obedience,  or  with  even  respect  toward  the  parent  state. 

Governor  Cosby  died  in  1736.  By  law  the  succession  to 
a  deceased  Governor’s  duties  devolved  upon  the  Lieutenant- 
Governor.  Difficulty  arose  in  the  present  instance  because 
the  Lieutenant-Governor,  Rip  Van  Dam,  had  been  privately 
suspended.  But  when  the  Council  therefore  chose  as  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  colony  the  senior  member,  Clarke,  Van  Dam 
still  insisted  on  his  own  supposed  right  to  the  position.  Van 
Dam  was  the  favorite  of  the  people,  and  until  Clarke’s 
commission  arrived  to  settle  the  dispute  there  were  dis¬ 
turbances  that  approached  to  all  but  personal  violence  to 
Clarke.  He  held  office  from  1736  to  1743. 109 


109  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  31-41. 


322 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


As  was  to  have  been  expected,  Clarke  found  an  ill-tempered 
Assembly.  Conflict  soon  began,  hinging  upon  the  question 
of  temporary  grants  for  the  support  of  the  government. 
The  first  support  bill  was  for  only  one  year.  At  its  expiration, 
when  Clarke  urged  a  more  permanent  grant,  the  conflict 
began.  The  Assembly  washed  to  extend  the  time  of  certain 
expiring  bills  of  credit  issued  in  1714  and  1717.  After  this 
last  address  of  the  Governor,  the  House  attached  a  bill  for 
this  purpose,  as  a  rider  to  the  next  annual  support  bill.110 
Clarke  parried  with  a  rider  of  his  own;  he  would  continue 
the  issue  of  credit  bills,  provided  the  Assembly  would  grant 
a  more  permanent  support.  The  Assembly  tried  again;  it 
wrould  pass  no  — 

Bills  for  the  Grant  of  Monies  for  the  Support  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  but  with  the  Assurance  that  the  Bills  struck  and  issued 
in  the  years  1714,  and  1717,  as  also  the  Excise  Act,  should  be 
continued  .  .  .  for  a  sufficient  Number  of  Years  to  cancel  and 
destroy  them  Bills.111 

These  were  considered  by  Clarke  to  be  “presumptuous, 
daring  and  unprecedented  Steps”,  and  he  therefore  dis¬ 
solved  the  Assembly.112 

At  the  next  session,  which  began  in  March,  1739,  the 
Assembly  was  still  determined  upon  securing  extension  for 
the  credit  bills.  Vigorously  it  opened  the  attack,  and  this 
time  succeeded.  The  details  are  interesting.  First  the 
Governor’s  salary,  which  by  resolve  of  a  committee  of  the 
whole  house  had  been  placed  during  the  previous  session  at 
£1,565,  was  reduced  to  £1,300. 113  The  following  entry, 
made  the  very  day  after  the  Governor  finally  allowed  the 
extension,  tells  the  whole  story: 

110  Assembly  Journal,  I,  747.  Smith,  op.  tit.,  p.  57. 

111  Assembly  Journal,  I,  747. 

112  Ibid.,  p.  748. 

113  Ibid.,  pp.  744,  765. 


NEW  YORK 


323 


A  motion  was  made  by  the  Speaker,  that  as  Times  and  Things 
are  at  present  circumstanced,  and  that  since  the  Act  which  the 
People  had  so  much  at  Heart ,  is  already  passed  and  published, 
there  be  allowed  to  his  Honour  the  Lieut. -Governour,  for  ad¬ 
ministering  the  Government  of  this  Colony  from  the  first  day 
of  September  1737,  to  the  first  Day  of  September  in  this  present 
year;  after  the  rate  of  One  Thousand,  Three  Hundred  Pounds, 
per  Ann.114 

For  two  years  Clarke’s  salary  had  not  been  paid. 

In  his  address  to  the  next  newly  elected  Assembly  —  of 
which  only  seven  members  were  really  new  —  Clarke  again 
urged  provision  for  a  more  permanent  support  bill  on  the 
customary  basis  of  a  grant  covering  a  period  of  years.114® 
In  the  mean  time,  there  had  been  hints  of  still  further  cuts 
in  his  salary.  This  may  have  prompted  Clarke  to  ask: 

Why  would  you  not  then  tread  in  the  Steps  of  a  British  Parlia¬ 
ment  .  .  .  who  though  they  have  been  ever  jealous  of  the  Rights 
and  Liberties  of  the  People,  yet  have  always  been  zealous  and 
forward  to  support  the  Government  that  protects  them.  .  .  . 
They  give  a  gross  Sum  for  the  Civil  List;  .  .  .  hut  do  not  touch 
upon  the  Application ,  or  Disposition  of  it ,  etc.nb 

The  reason  for  the  latter  references  can  be  readily  seen  in 
the  Assembly’s  previous  resolve, 

.  .  .  not  to  permit  any  Monies  to  be  drawn,  or  made  payable 
out  of  the  Treasury  of  this  Colony,  by  Virtue  of  any  Orders  or 
Warrants  issued  by  the  Governor  in  Council.116 

The  House  was  still  insisting  on  full  control  of  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  public  funds.  Thus  strained  relations  con¬ 
tinued  until  finally,  in  the  following  April  meeting,  Clarke’s 

114  Assembly  Journal ,  I,  p.  768. 

11401  Assembly  Journal ,  I,  750. 

115  Ibid.,  p.  764. 

116  Ibid.,  pp.  772jf. 


324 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


pent-up  feelings  broke  forth.  The  Assembly,  he  declared, 
by  this  persistent  and  complete  control,  not  only  of  the  actual 
grants  of  money,  but  of  its  application  also,  was  rendering 
the  government  officials  completely  dependent  on  the  repre¬ 
sentatives.  The  King  was  practically  a  figurehead.  Cer¬ 
tainly  this  procedure  gave  weight  to  suspicions  already 
prevalent  in  England,  of  “thoughts  of  throwing  off  their 
dependence/’  He  then  urged  that  the  Assembly  secede 
from  its  too  powerful  control  of  moneys,  and  administer 
finances  according  to  the  King’s  wishes.  The  idea  of  their 
own  independent  treasurer  was  especially  repugnant.117 

The  Assembly  replied  in  kind.  Former  officials  had  mis¬ 
applied  and  embezzled  funds;  therefore  they  would  keep 
their  control,  and  their  treasurer,  and  their  custom  of 
making  only  annual  grants  for  support.  In  fact,  such  grants 
were  even  better  than  longer  ones,  because  the  year  to  year 
consideration  was  less  apt  to  leave  salaries  very  long  without 
the  proper  attention.  For  each  of  Clarke’s  arguments  the 
representatives  had  a  reply  or  a  justification.  No  cession 
of  control,  no  grant  for  more  than  a  year’s  supply  was  given. 
In  fact,  there  began  to  grow  a  tendency  to  avoid  any  legis¬ 
lation  whatsoever  that  was  not  absolutely  imperative.118 
News  of  the  appointment  of  a  new  Governor  served  only  to 
strengthen  this  policy. 

In  September,  1741,  Clarke  again  requested  “such  a 
Revenue  and  for  such  a  Term  of  Years  without  particular 
Application  of  it,  as  former  Assemblies  gave.”  He  urged 
also  at  this  time  provision  for  the  West  Indies  expedition 
then  on  foot,  and  for  forts  and  repairs  to  them;  and  he  re¬ 
minded  the  members  that  to  this  address,  at  least,  they 
could  impute  no  interested  motives,  because  it  was  to  be 
his  last.  A  new  Governor  was  expected.119 

117  Assembly  Journal,  I,  792.  One  of  the  longest  speeches  ever  made  by  a  New 
York  Governor;  cf.  also  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  229. 

118  Assembly  Journal,  I,  797 ff.,  800-807. 

119  Ibid.,  p.  808. 


NEW  YORK 


325 


The  long  reply  gave  no  promise  of  better  relations.  The 
new  Governor  would  be  most  welcome;  on  the  revenue 
question  he  might  consult  their  last  speech;  their  right  to 
manage  application  of  funds  was  reasserted,  with  a  reference 
to  the  £1,000  granted  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  French 
war  for  batteries  in  the  Narrows  —  for  which  purpose  not 
a  stone  had  been  touched  —  and  with  an  appeal  also  to  the 
late  opinion  of  the  Boards  of  Trade  on  this  subject.  They 
then  declared: 

As  Assemblies  are  the  Givers  of  Money,  so  they  have  and 
ought  to  have,  an  undoubted  Right  to  fix  the  Disposal  of  it.120 

To  this  point-blank  refusal  the  Governor,  in  reply,  merely 
bowed;  after  which  the  Assembly  immediately  proceeded 
to  give  added  emphasis  by  turning  to  the  renewal  of  the  dis¬ 
tasteful  one-year  act.121  Then,  to  make  matters  worse, 
there  was  a  resolve  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the 
salaries  of  government  officers  — 

until  such  Bills  as  this  House  have  already  prepared,  or  shall  at 
this  Meeting  further  prepare,  for  the  Benefit  of  the  Inhabitants 
of  this  Colony,  be  first  passed  into  Laws.122 

This  was  strong  action,  and  it  drove  the  Governor,  says 
Chalmers,  into  “a  kind  of  despair.”  123  He  then  wrote  to 
the  Lords  of  Trade: 

They  have  unmasked,  at  last,  and  in  effect  declared,  that  if  a 
governor  will  not  blindly  consent  to  their  bills,  however  un¬ 
reasonable  or  contrary  to  his  instructions,  they  will  starve  him 
into  compliance.124 

120  Assembly  Journal,  I,  811. 

121  Ibid,.,  I,  813.  They  passed  the  yearly  support  bill  for  1740  on  Oct.  15,  1741, 
almost  a  year  later.  Support  for  the  next  year,  September,  1741,  to  December, 
1742,  was  granted  a  few  days  later,  October  26.  Cf.  ibid.,  p.  818. 

122  Ibid.,  p.  815. 

123  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  228 [f. 

124  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  206. 


326 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


About  the  same  time  Bradford,  the  attorney-general,  re¬ 
marked  to  the  Board  upon  the  Assembly’s  eagerness  — 

To  encroach  on  the  prerogative  of  the  crown,  in  order  to  shake 
off,  as  fast  as  they  are  able,  their  dependence  on  the  nation,  and 
set  up  for  themselves.125 

Succeeding  developments  show  the  same  results  —  or  lack 
of  them  —  for  the  Governor.  Watchful  waiting,  not  doing, 
seemed  to  be  the  Assembly’s  policy.  There  was  even  an 
“unprecedented”  request  for  adjournment.  After  another 
urging  for  a  more  permanent  support  bill,  made  on  October 
13,  1742,  Clarke  finally  gave  up.  Even  the  King’s  ministers, 
when  so  requested  by  the  Governor,  had  failed  to  vindicate 
His  Majesty’s  authority  in  this  matter.  Therefore  Clarke 
submitted  to  what  was  practically  the  inevitable,  relinquished 
his  instructions,  and  in  effect  handed  over  the  government 
to  the  aggressive  Assembly.126 

Some  indication  of  the  nature  of  the  relations  betwreen 
Governor  Clarke  and  his  Assembly  can  be  gleaned  from  the 
following  declaration  from  that  body.  Although  occurring 
in  the  Governor’s  second  year,  it  points  to  conditions  exist¬ 
ing  throughout  the  administration.  The  passage  speaks 
also  for  itself  on  the  subject  of  the  Assembly’s  progress  in 
its  theory  of  independence: 

You  are  not  to  expect,  that  we  either  will  raise  Sums  unfit  to 
be  raised,  or  put  what  we  shall  raise  into  the  Power  of  a 
Governor  to  misapply  if  we  can  prevent  it;  nor  shall  we  make 
up  any  other  deficiencies  than  what  we  conceive  are  fit  and  just 
to  be  paid,  or  continue  what  Support  or  Revenue  we  shall  raise 
any  longer  Time  than  one  year,  nor  do  we  think  it  convenient 
to  do  even  that,  until  such  Laws  are  passed  as  we  consider  neces- 

125  Chalmers,  Revolt ,  II,  228. 

126  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  228.  For  general  account  of  these  proceedings  see 
Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  76-83. 


NEW  YORK 


327 


sary  for  the  Safety  of  the  Inhabitants  of  this  Colony,  who  have 
reposed  a  Trust  on  us  for  that  only  Purpose  .  .  .  and  by  the 
Grace  of  God,  we  will  endeavor  not  to  deceive  them.127 

Governor  Clarke  was  succeeded  by  Commodore  George 
Clinton  (1743  -1753).  There  were  various  causes  of  Clinton’s 
troubles  with  his  Assemblies  —  causes  which  in  the  nature 
of  things  brought  to  this  Governor  one  of  the  most  disturbed 
administrations  up  to  that  period  in  the  history  of  New 
York.  The  point  to  be  noted  is  the  far-reaching  implication 
of  each  radical  and  daring  step  made  by  the  Assembly  in 
the  direction  of  complete  control  of  the  government.  When 
the  Assembly  finished  clipping  Clinton’s  powers,  he  was 
hardly  more  than  a  figurehead. 

One  of  these  contributing  causes  resulted  from  the  Gov¬ 
ernor’s  long  military  experience.  Accustomed  to  command 
and  to  be  instantly  obeyed,  there  was  little  in  his  training 
to  develop  the  patient  sagacity  and  diplomatic,  inoffensive, 
and  not  too  obtrusive  leadership  of  a  political  executive. 
His  aggressive  attitude  often  increased  antagonism;  while 
on  the  other  hand  his  too  great  anxiety  at  times  to  conciliate 
took  the  meaning  out  of  his  aggression,  and  encouraged 
further  liberties. 

The  fact,  too,  that  the  chief  bearing  of  his  instructions 
touched  upon  the  sorest  spot  in  the  legislative  frame  was 
not  in  his  favor.  He  was  directed  to  regain  what  in  Clarke’s 
time  had  been  quite  completely  taken  over  by  the  As¬ 
sembly,  —  the  chief  control  in  money  matters.128 

A  third  factor  in  Clinton’s  troubles  was  the  mistaken 
policy  of  conciliation  adopted  on  the  advice  of  Delancey,  one 
of  the  cleverest  politicians  in  the  legislature.  This  advice 
led  him  to  yield,  at  the  beginning,  to  every  demand  of  the 
Assembly.  The  purpose  was  to  win  their  confidence  first 

127  Assembly  Journal ,  I,  708,  Sept.  7,  1737. 

128  Assembly  Journal,  II,  259. 


328 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


and  thus  to  render  the  enforcement  of  his  own  measures  less 
difficult.  But  these  concessions  were  responsible  for  his 
later  defeats.129 

Clinton’s  first  political  act  was  to  dissolve  the  existing 
Assembly.  At  the  new  election,  the  same  members,  all  but 
seven,  were  returned,  —  a  significant  fact,  implying  continua¬ 
tion  of  the  old  policy.130 

Two  subjects  of  dispute  formed  the  basis  of  practically 
all  Clinton’s  trouble.  The  chief  one  was  in  connection  with 
securing  grants  for  military  purposes  —  in  the  early  years 
for  defense  of  the  province,  and  later  for  co-operation  in  the 
union  of  the  northern  colonies  for  an  expedition  against 
Canada.  The  second  outstanding  dispute  arose  over  the 
Assembly’s  assumption  of  the  appointing  power.  The  old 
questions,  too,  of  a  more  permanent  support  bill  and  of 
issuance  of  paper  money  also  recurred. 

The  first  session,  which  practically  passed  without  trouble, 
laid  the  foundation  of  conflicts  such  as  no  Governor  of  New 
York  had  yet  encountered.  Measures  for  the  defense  of  the 
province,  for  keeping  loyal  the  Six  Nations,  and  for  pro¬ 
viding  for  the  civil  list  were  readily  passed.  But  in  defiance 
of  Clinton’s  instructions,  the  grants  were  made  for  only  one 
year;  and  what  is  especially  to  be  noted,  salaries  were 
assigned,  not  to  offices,  but  to  the  men  holding  them.  This 
was  a  virtual  assumption  of  the  appointing  power  and  of  its 
consequent  influence.  It  gave  to  the  Assembly  complete 
control  of  the  government.  Once  the  salary  was  allotted  to 
an  individual,  the  Governor  was  practically  forced  to  con¬ 
tinue  him  in  office.  His  own  appointees  could  not  by  reason 
of  their  appointment  draw  any  salary,  because  this  was  not 
assigned  to  the  office,  but  to  the  individual.  The  implica¬ 
tions  of  these  proceedings  are  evident.  But  Clinton,  follow- 

129  Cf.  Clinton  to  Board  of  Trade,  June  22,  1747,  in  which  he  comments  upon 
the  rashness  of  this  policy.  New  York  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  350-353. 

130  Assembly  Journal,  I,  Nov.  8,  1743. 


NEW  YORK 


329 


ing  out  the  conciliatory  policy  which  he  ever  after  regretted, 
made  no  objections.  He  had  handed  to  his  adversary  a 
most  powerful  weapon.131 

Clinton’s  conciliation  kept  the  peace  until  nearly  the  end 
of  1744.  At  that  time  the  pressure  of  war  by  France  against 
England  had  impelled  the  ministry  to  order  the  Governor 
to  strengthen  the  English  outposts  in  America.  Therefore, 
when  after  an  adjournment  of  some  months  the  Assembly 
met  in  March,  1745,  Clinton  in  a  long  address132  emphasized 
this  danger  from  the  French,  citing  their  late  advance  on 
Annapolis,  and  recommending  immediate  and  effective  co¬ 
operation  in  the  common  effort  of  the  northern  colonies 
against  the  frontier  menace.  The  Assembly,  however,  was 
not  easily  persuaded.  Clinton’s  words  to  the  Lords  of  Trade 
three  months  later  imply  that  conflict  had  begun.  The 
Assembly  “had  not  fully  answered  his  expectations.”  133 
And  in  the  succeeding  months  the  breach  widened,  prompting 
the  following  admission  from  the  Governor  in  a  letter  to  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle: 

It  is  with  the  utmost  difficulty  to  bring  them  to  any  tolerable 
resolution  for  the  service  of  the  public,  notwithstanding  their 
safety  and  fortunes  are  concerned,  being  under  strong  appre¬ 
hensions  daily  that  our  Frontiers  will  be  attacked  by  the  French 
.  .  .  etc.134 

Clinton’s  speech  had  produced  little  result.  “They  de¬ 
liberated  long,  and  did  little,”  taking  a  full  month  to  decide 
on  the  question  of  sending  commissioners  to  discuss  meas¬ 
ures  with  neighboring  colonies.  The  several  resolves  that 

131  Cf.  Assembly  Journal ,  II,  1-43,  for  further  details;  also  Chalmers,  Revolt, 
II,  229. 

132  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  225.  Assembly  Journal,  II,  45,  46.  Adjourned  from  Sept. 
21  to  Dec.  4,  to  Feb.  5,  to  March  5,  1745. 

133  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  254.  Clinton  to  Board  of  Trade,  June,  1744. 

134  Ibid.,  p.  259. 


330 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


were  passed  for  specific  military  purposes  were  hampered  by 
the  very  fact  of  the  exact  specification.135 

A  few  days  later136  Clinton  thought  to  urge  greater  co¬ 
operation  by  announcing  a  report  of  the  possible  approach 
of  twenty-seven  hostile  ships.  But  the  following  entry,  as 
showing  the  trend  of  the  Assembly’s  interests,  bespeaks  but 
little  effect  from  this  address.  To  an  act  regarding  fortifi¬ 
cations  and  the  general  security  of  the  colony,  it  was  pro¬ 
posed  to  add  a  clause  providing  £60  extra  “for  making  a 
new  Garden  Fence  around  the  Fort  Garden”  137  Altogether 
only  £3,000  had  been  granted  for  defense.138  Finally,  after 
another  month  of  futile  waiting,  Clinton,  believing  that  it 
had  become  “absolutely  needful  to  try  all  ways  to  bring 
them  to  a  just  sense  of  their  duty  to  his  Majesty,”  139  de¬ 
termined  to  dissolve  the  Assembly.  In  his  address  on  that 
occasion,140  he  referred  the  members  to  his  messages,  papers, 
and  repeated  urgings  regarding  the  dangerous  condition  of 
the  colony,  to  which  the  House  had  not  even  deigned  to 
reply.  He  noted  also  their  neglect  of  the  frontiers,  and  of 
providing  presents  necessary  to  keep  the  Indians  loyal;  their 
downright  disrespect  to  his  own  person,  and  the  positive 
misrepresentations  in  the  Journal ,  made  for  the  purpose  of 
deceiving  constituents;  the  credit  bills  yet  unredeemed,  and 
of  many  unwarranted  arbitrary  encroachments  on  the  pre¬ 
rogative.  He  accused  them,  moreover,  — 

...  of  assuming  the  Administration  of  the  Government  and  wrest¬ 
ing  his  Majesty’s  authority  out  of  the  Hands  of  his  Governor. 
Thus  from  an  invincible  untowardness  on  one  Hand,  and  an 
inordinate  Thirst  of  Power  on  the  other,  you  are  become,  as  it 

135  Assembly  Journal ,  II,  54jf.,  April  9,  1745.  Chalmers,  op.  cit.,  II,  231. 

136  Ibid.,  p.  56.  The  entry  is  dated  April  17.  It  occurs,  however,  between  two 
other  entries  each  dated  April  11. 

137  Ibid.  (Italics  inserted.) 

138  Chalmers,  op.  cit.,  II,  231. 

139  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  282.  Clinton  to  Board  of  Trade. 

140  Assembly  Journal,  II,  62. 


NEW  YORK 


331 


were  a  dead  weight  against  the  other  Branches  of  the  Legis¬ 
lature.141 

Measured  financially,  Clinton’s  progress  with  the  next 
Assembly  had  advanced  by  the  amount  of  £2,000. 142  The 
successes  against  Louisburg  had  put  the  colonists  in  better 
humor.  He  therefore  urged  the  precaution  necessary  to 
maintain  the  advantage,  and  presented  requests  from  Gov¬ 
ernor  Shirley  and  from  Warren  regarding  the  “Prosecution 
of  other  Measures.”  Special  emphasis  was  laid  on  the 
doubtful  loyalty  of  the  Indians,  and  the  necessity  of  making 
a  grant  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  deal  with  them  in  order 
to  offset  this  danger.143  At  later  dates 144  the  same  repre¬ 
sentations  were  repeated,  but  to  no  purpose,  for  the  Assembly 
had  apparently  decided  that  it  would  do  no  more.  Then,  in 
confirmation  of  his  warnings,  came  the  massacre  at  Saratoga, 
Nov.  16,  1745.  Clinton  called  the  Assembly  and  adminis¬ 
tered  another  rebuke.  Their  neglect  was  inexcusable.  “The 
like  was  never  known,  that  one  part  of  a  Government  should 
be  left  to  be  butchered  by  the  Enemy,  without  assistance 
from  the  other.”  This,  too,  with  the  province  in  far  better 
condition  to  grant  defense  appropriations  than  it  was  in  the 
earlier  days,  when  proportionately  much  more  was  done  in 
this  line;  and  even  at  the  time  of  his  speaking,  the  money 
in  the  treasury  “fell  far  short  of  answering  the  ordinary 
Services  of  the  Government.”  145 

In  reply,  the  Assembly  decided  to  “consider”  his  remarks. 
All  this  occurred  on  Nov.  20,  1745.  A  letter  from  Clinton 
written  ten  days  later  gives  further  insight  into  his  relations 
with  the  Assembly: 

141  Assembly  Journal ,  II,  61,  62. 

142  p,ormer  grant  had  been  £3,000  sterling. 

143  Assembly  Journal,  II,  70,  Aug.  20,  1745;  cf.  also  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  91jf. 
Chalmers,  op.  cit.,  II,  231. 

144  August  23,  November  2,  and  November  20.  Cf.  Journal,  II,  74-89. 

145  Assembly  Journal,  II,  86,  87. 


332 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


I  am  extremely  concerned  to  see  the  dispatch  of  public  busi¬ 
ness  so  greatly  neglected  by  the  Assembly  of  this  Province,  not¬ 
withstanding  my  frequent  importunities  and  recommendations 
on  that  head,  and  I  am  persuaded  while  they  are  at  the  charge 
of  maintaining  a  Governor,  it  never  will  be  otherwise,  tho’  I 
have  it  to  say  none  ever  gained  more  esteem  than  myself,  thro’ 
a  candid  behaviour  to  them! 

They  are  selfish,  and  jealous  of  the  power  of  the  Crown,  and 
of  such  levelling  principles  that  they  are  constantly  attacking  its 
prerogative,  so  that  nothing  but  Governors’  independence  can 
bring  them  to  a  just  sense  of  their  duty  to  His  Majesty  and  his 
service.  I  have  taken  unwearied  pains  with  them  to  that  end, 
tho’  hitherto  to  little  purpose,  and  I  find  that  neither  dissolutions 
or  fair  means  can  produce  from  them  such  effects  as  will  tend  to 
the  public  good  or  their  own  preservation.  They  will  neither 
act  for  themselves  or  assist  their  neighbours,  although  I  have 
constantly  laid  before  them  His  Majesty’s  Royal  orders  and 
Instructions,  transmitted  to  me  from  time  to  time  since  the 
Commencement  of  the  War,  as  also  the  frequent  applications 
made  to  me  by  Governor  Shirley  and  Mr.  Warren  for  assistance 
of  men,  provisions  and  money  in  maintenance  of  the  late  ex¬ 
pedition  against  Cape  Breton,  and  for  the  protection  of  Louis- 
bourg,  since  reduced  to  the  obedience  of  His  Majesty. 

To  all  which  they  have  shown  no  greater  regard  than  voting 
£5,000  to  that  service  (which  is  not  likely  to  be  paid)  with¬ 
out  any  other  assistance,  and  even  that  was  more  than  I  well 
could  expect,  as  few  but  hirelings  have  a  seat  in  the  Assembly, 
who  protract  time  for  the  sake  of  their  wages,  at  a  great  expense 
to  the  Province,  without  contributing  anything  material  for  its 
welfare,  credit  or  safety. 

It  is  now  become  clear  to  me,  that  unless  the  Legislature  at 
home  does  take  cognizance  of  their  disobedience  and  indolence, 
and  enjoin  them  to  a  more  ready  compliance  to  His  Majesty’s 
Royal  orders  and  instructions,  I  have  but  poor  hopes  of  suc¬ 
ceeding  in  any  affair,  tho’  ever  so  well  concerted  for  His  Majesty’s 
service  and  the  Security  of  the  Province.146 

From  that  time  until  the  following  June,  conditions  re- 


146  N.  Y.  Col  Doc.,  VI,  288/. 


NEW  YORK 


333 


mained  about  the  same.  The  Governor  urged  further 
supplies;  the  Assembly  “considered”  his  addresses.  Then 
came  a  change,  which  must  have  seemed  to  Clinton  sur¬ 
prisingly  pleasant.  On  June  6,  1746,  he  announced  the 
united  expedition  against  Canada,  to  which  the  ministry, 
“in  an  evil  hour”  says  Chalmers,  had  consented.  The 
Assembly  highly  approved,  with  promise  of  “Unanimity  and 
effectual  Dispatch  ...  in  opposing  the  Perfidy  and  Cruelty 
of  the  most  dangerous  Enemy.”  147 

During  the  next  two  months,  with  urgent  messages  of 
the  Governor  interspersing  the  proceedings,  many  bills  for 
furthering  the  expedition  were  passed.  But  there  was 
always  care,  in  their  framing,  to  keep  the  Governor’s  power 
as  limited  as  possible.  Clinton  remonstrated  strongly  against 
thus  tying  up  their  grants  so  that  even  “Provisions  for  the 
Army  are  not  subject  to  the  Orders  of  the  General.”  148  But 
his  previous  yielding  to  what  he  considered  to  be  incurable 
evils  had  destroyed  hope  of  resistance.  He  himself  admitted 
that  he  had  been  “resigning  the  essential  powers  of  govern¬ 
ment.”  149  A  letter  to  the  Board  of  Trade  enumerated  the 
chief  acts  to  which  his  assent  had  been  practically  forced 
and  gave  his  justifications  for  yielding.150 

Clinton  was  now  apparently  driven  to  the  wall.  He 
declared  that  in  the  future,  cases  of  dispute  would  be  laid 
before  the  King  and  his  ministers,  thereby  implying  that  he 
was  himself  powerless: 

Gentlemen,  I  think  this  is  an  Occasion  on  which  I  may  be 
allowed  to  tell  you,  that  within  these  six  months  last  past,  I 
have  gone  through  more  difficulties,  I  have  had  less  Assistance 
and  I  have  done  more  for  the  Province,  than  I  believe  any  Governor 

147  Assembly'  Journal,  II,  88-112,  especially  entries  for  March  20  to  April  23 
and  June  3.  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  231. 

148  Assembly  Journal,  II,  126.  Chalmers,  op.  cit.,  II,  232. 

149  Clinton  to  Board  of  Trade,  quoted  by  Chalmers,  op.  cit.,  II,  232. 

150  Cf.  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  316. 


334 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


of  New  York  before  me;  I  feel  in  my  own  Breast,  my  zeal  for  my 
King  and  my  Country’s  service;  and,  therefore,  I  can  with 
pleasure,  lay  the  account  of  my  Administration  to  his  Majesty’s 
feet.151 

Later  on  Clinton  succumbed  even  to  the  extent  of  per¬ 
mitting  himself  to  be  called  to  account  by  the  lower  House. 
For  a  Governor  his  replies  were  far  too  conciliatory,  too  full 
of  excuses  and  of  justifications  for  various  military  opera¬ 
tions.  Perhaps  he  thought  it  of  no  use  bluntly  to  oppose  the 
Assembly.  The  House,  however,  took  advantage  of  his 
apparent  weakness,  resolving  that  his  explanation  was  4 4  in 
no  Respect  satisfactory.’7  And  they  absolutely  refused  to 
make  any  further  allowance  for  the  expedition  until  the 
44 Notorious  Abuses”  perpetrated  in  regard  to  supplies 
previously  granted  were  rectified.  In  fact,  44 until  such 
Assurances  be  given,  this  House  cannot  .  .  .  proceed  upon 
any  Business  whatsoever.”  152 

Clinton’s  attitude,  however,  became  more  aggressive 
when  the  Assembly  met  again  after  an  adjournment  of 
several  months.153  From  the  first  meeting  in  March,  1747, 
on  through  the  spring  and  summer,  there  was  continual  con¬ 
troversy.  The  Assembly  Journal  for  that  period  is  chiefly 
taken  up  with  the  Governor’s  addresses  of  remonstrance  or 
of  reprimand,  and  the  Assembly’s  prompt  replies.154 

In  the  mean  time  Clinton  had  employed  his  private  fortune 
to  pay  for  expenses  of  war  that  the  Assembly  refused  to 
meet.155  By  the  end  of  May  things  were  come  to  such  a  pass, 
and  his  own  power  was  so  hopelessly  checked,  that  he  wrote 
to  Newcastle  declaring  that  the  time  had  come  for  the  King 
to  do  one  of  two  things,  4 4  either  to  support  his  authority  in 

151  Assembly  Journal,  II,  135. 

152  Ibid.,  pp.  137-139. 

153  Adjourned  Dec.  6,  1746;  convened  March  25,  1747. 

154  Assembly  Journal,  II,  141-159,  passim. 

155  Clinton  to  Newcastle,  May  11,  1747,  New  York  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  342.  Clinton 
to  Assembly,  Assembly  Journal,  II,  157. 


NEW  YORK 


335 


the  hands  of  his  Governor,  or  to  give  it  up  to  a  popular 
faction.”  He  thought,  too,  of  asking  leave  to  return  to 
England  in  order  to  present  a  true  statement  of  affairs.156 
The  immediate  occasion  of  this  letter  was  probably  a  remon¬ 
strance  made  by  the  Assembly  in  the  form  of  a  series  of 
representations  to  the  Governor,  setting  forth  their  justifi¬ 
cations,  pointing  out  proofs  of  their  loyalty,  and  giving  a 
general  review  of  their  proceedings  since  His  Excellency’s 
arrival.  In  the  reply,  Clinton  accused  them  of  fearing  to 
enter  their  “Representations”  on  the  minute  book  at  the 
proper  time,  and  determined  that  he  would  himself  lay 
the  matter  before  the  King.157 

About  the  same  time,  also,  there  was  a  dispute  as  to  pay¬ 
ment  of  salaries  of  the  troops  levied  for  the  Canada  expe¬ 
dition.  The  Assembly  maintained  that  its  own  duty  ex¬ 
tended  only  to  providing  sustenance.  Clinton  felt  that  the 
colony  should  assist  also  in  the  payment.  Then  the  Assembly 
laid  all  responsibility  on  the  Governor,  because  of  his  refusal 
to  approve  their  bills  of  credit  for  the  purpose.  Thus  for 
many  months  the  wrangling  continued.  Finally  Clinton 
thought  to  end  it  all  by  declaring  that  he  would  receive  no 
other  business  from  the  House  except  in  relation  to  matters 
of  defense  and  placation  of  the  Indians.  This  statement  set 
up  a  regular  conflagration  in  the  House,  and  the  next  meeting 
was  conducted  with  “the  Door  locked,  and  the  key  laid  on 
the  Table.”  No  member  could  depart  until  an  answer  to 
this  “extraordinary”  message  had  been  framed.158  “ Nemine 
contradicente ,”  they  resolved: 

That  his  Excellency’s  declaring  that  he  will  receive  nothing 
from  the  House  at  this  time,  but  what  relates  to  his  message  of 
the  6th  inst.,  is  irregular  and  unprecedented,  and  manifestly 

156  Clinton  to  Board  of  Trade,  May  30,  1747,  New  York  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  350,  351. 

157  Assembly  Journal,  II,  149,  156,  May  19  and  26,  1747.  Clinton’s  reply  to  the 
representations  is  given  in  New  York  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  365-371. 

158  Assembly  Journal,  II,  157ff.,  160-173.  Wrangling  continued  from  July 
30  to  Oct.  8,  1747. 


336 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


tends  to  the  Subversion  of  the  Rights,  Liberties  and  Privileges, 
of  this  House  and  of  the  people  they  represent. 

We  must  also  be  free  to  disclose  to  your  Excellency,  that  we 
are  very  sensible  with  what  contempt  you  have  treated  the  People 
of  this  Colony  in  general,  and  the  members  of  this  House  in 
particular;  from  a  very  early  time  of  your  Administration  in 
Terms  so  opprobrious,  as  are  not  fit  to  be  published;  and  your 
Excellency’s  Speeches  and  Messages  to  the  House  of  late,  have 
been  so  full  fraught,  with  unjust  and  injurious  Reproaches,  in- 
viduous  Reflections  and  Calumnies,  that  must  have  tried  the 
Patience  of  the  House,  at  any  time  than  this,  when  we  choose 
rather  to  suffer  injustly,  if,  perchance,  we  could  be  so  doing, 
promote  his  Majesty’s  Service  and  Interest,  Welfare  and  Security 
of  our  Country. 

But  as  your  Excellency  may  perhaps  be  advised  that  the 
method  to  manage  an  Assembly  is  to  harass  them  with  frequent 
short  Adjournments,  by  which  they  will  soon  be  tired  and  brought 
to  submit  to  any  measures;  we  take  the  liberty  to  assure  your 
Excellency,  that  such  advice  is  vain  arid  fruitless:  No  Treatment 
your  Excellency  can  use  towards  us;  no  Inconveniences  how 
great  soever,  that  we  may  suffer  in  our  own  Persons,  shall  ever 
prevail  upon  us  to  abandon  (or  divert  us  from  readily  pursuing) 
the  Interest  of  our  Country.159 

After  the  Assembly  had  answered  with  a  detailed  state¬ 
ment  of  the  situation  and  of  the  reasons  for  their  disagree¬ 
ment  with  the  Governor,  Clinton  replied  in  a  still  more 
detailed  address,  containing  over  three  thousand  words, 
accusing  them  of  fostering  a  “firm  Principle  of  Disloyalty  — 
Design  to  overthrow  the  constitution  of  the  Government 
.  .  .  etc.”  To  add  fuel  to  the  flame,  he  maintained  that  so 
great  had  become  the  effrontery  of  the  House,  that  a  certain 
committee  had  actually  intruded  upon  his  privacy,  uncere¬ 
moniously  compelling  him  to  listen  to  the  reading  of  a 

159  Assembly  Journal,  II,  pp.  173,  177,  180. 


NEW  YORK 


337 


bundle  of  reports,  —  which  the  alleged  members  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  flatly  denied.160 

Then  came  the  dispute  over  printing.  When  the  Governor 
would  not  hear  the  representations  of  the  committee  the 
members  resolved  to  have  them  printed,  although  they 
aimed  directly  at  the  executive  and  were,  according  to  him, 
malicious  falsehoods.  When  he  therefore  forbade  the  print¬ 
ing,  the  House  immediately  pronounced  the  prohibition  a 
positive  “Violation  of  the  Rights  and  Liberties  of  the 
People,”  subversive  of  the  privileges  of  the  House,  liberty 
of  the  press,  and  even  against  the  law. 

On  another  occasion,  after  a  visit  among  the  Indians, 
Clinton  ordered  his  journal  to  be  printed.  While  the  public 
printer  wTas  thus  engaged  the  Assembly  ordered  him  to 
print  an  address  of  their  own.  Despite  Clinton’s  order  the 
printer  complied  with  the  request  of  the  members,  who 
paid  his  salary,  while  the  Governor’s  article  took  second 
place.161 

Meantime,  throughout  October  and  November,  1747,  ad¬ 
dresses,  replies,  resolves,  and  recriminations  flew  back  and 
forth.  There  was  no  point  of  agreement,  although  the 
Governor  was  forced  to  accept  another  paper  money  issue.162 
The  following  are  some  of  the  points  arraigned:  action  on 
the  printing;  lies  in  the  Remonstrance;  intention  to  assume 
“Superiority  in  the  Administration;”  their  interference 
with  his  orders,  necessarily  secret,  owing  to  the  nature  of 
the  campaign  against  Canada,  —  which  interference  had 
lost  over  £40,000  to  the  province;  arousing,  by  their  insin¬ 
uations  against  the  government,  disobedience  among  the 
people;  refusal  to  grant  moneys  to  pay  the  men  levied  for 
the  expedition.  On  points  particularly  tender,  he  said: 

160  Assembly  Journal,  II,  177 ff.,  18 6jf.,  191  jf. 

161  Cf.  Clinton’s  Report  to  the  Board  of  Trade  made  in  December,  1748.  New 
York  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  461. 

162  Assembly  Journal,  II,  189-199.  Cf.  entry  for  Nov.  13,  1747. 


338 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Many  other  Instances  can  be  given  of  your  grasping  at  Power, 
both  Civil  and  Military,  by  your  assuming  to  yourselves  the 
Nomination  to  Offices,  and  the  sole  rewarding  of  all  Service,  as 
in  every  Money  Bill  you  pass;  to  which  you  will  allow  of  no 
Amendment  by  the  Council,  in  any  part  of  the  Bill,  how  foreign 
soever  to  the  granting  Part,  neither  do  you  previously  advise  or 
consult  with  your  Governor,  either  in  the  Nomination  to  Offices, 
or  the  rewarding  of  Services.163 

Nothing  daunted  by  this  speech  or  by  the  dissolution 
that  followed,  the  Assembly  met  unofficially,  and  drew  up 
its  reply  in  a  lengthy  statement  of  over  12,000  words.164 

In  1748  a  new  policy  toward  the  colonies  was  adopted  in 
England  owing  to  the  accession  of  the  aggressive  Bedford  in 
the  place  of  Newcastle.  Bedford  determined  to  heed  the 
remonstrances  that  were  coming  in  from  colonial  corre¬ 
spondence.  Newcastle  had  permitted  affairs  to  shift  almost 
for  themselves.  In  1748,  also,  a  new  policy  was  adopted  by 
the  Governors  assisting  at  an  Albany  convention  in  reference 
to  the  rapidly  increasing  powers  of  Assemblies.165 

The  presence  there  of  three  prerogative  men  from  Massa¬ 
chusetts  —  Shirley,  Oliver,  and  Hutchinson  —  partly  indi¬ 
cates  the  origin  of  this  plan.  Although  the  convention  had 
for  its  ostensible  object  the  Indian  affairs,  plans  for  checking 
the  Assemblies  were  not  the  least  important  of  its  proceed¬ 
ings.  After  this  convention  Shirley  and  Clinton  wrote  a 
joint  letter  to  the  Lords  of  Trade.  Clinton  also  took  the 
opportunity  while  Shirley  was  in  New  York  to  ask  the 
Massachusetts  Governor  to  look  into  the  affairs  of  the 
colony  and  to  suggest  some  method  for  alleviating  the  dis¬ 
turbed  political  situation.166  After  a  minute  examination, 

163  Assembly  Journal,  II,  202-204. 

164  This  statement,  in  small  print,  is  included  in  the  Assembly  Journal  after  the 
Governor’s  dissolving  speech.  Cf.  II,  120j$\  Dissolved  Nov.  29,  1747. 

166  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United  States,  1891  edition,  II,  327-330. 

166  Cf.  letter  in  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  430;  also  Clinton  to  Shirley,  Aug.  5,  1748, 
ibid.,  VI,  432. 


NEW  YORK 


339 


even  of  the  legislative  minutes  from  Cornbury  down,  Shirley 
wrote : 

The  Assembly  seems  to  have  left  scarcely  any  part  of  His 
Majesty’s  prerogative  untouched,  and  they  have  gone  great 
lengths  toward  getting  the  government,  military  as  well  as  civil, 
into  their  hands.167 

He  enumerated  also  the  above  mentioned  causes  of  dis¬ 
pute,  and  others  besides.  To  grants  made  to  Clinton  the 
House  had  attached  others  for  certain  persons  under  pretext 
of  “Extraordinary  Services,”  but  in  reality  to  meet  costs  of 
composing  and  publishing  libellous  papers  against  him; 
they  had  assumed  complete  control  of  the  muster  rolls;  they 
had,  without  the  Governor’s  warrant,  drawn  money  from 
the  treasury  to  pay  troops;  and  in  acts  respecting  defenses 
had  determined  in  what  manner  and  by  whom  the  construc¬ 
tion  was  to  be  conducted. 

As  the  chief  remedy,  Shirley  suggested  that  Clinton  regain 
the  customary  five-year  support  bill,  and  “insist  in  general 
to  have  his  Majesty’s  government  restored  to  its  former 
state.”  This  advice  Clinton  followed  to  the  letter.  His 
address  in  October,  1745,  was  a  repetition  in  part  of  Shirley’s 
ideas.168  Enumerating  the  points  of  conflict  already  referred 
to,  he  informed  the  House  of  his  “indispensable  Duty  of 
putting  a  stop  to  these  Innovations.”  But  the  Assembly 
agreed  to  none  of  his  suggestions,  giving  reasons  for  maintain¬ 
ing  the  two  most  disputed  points,  —  support  by  annual  grants, 
and  salary  allotments  to  persons  rather  than  to  office.169 

Relations  became  even  more  strained  when  the  Assembly 
sent  to  Clinton  two  of  its  members,  apparently  informally, 
with  an  address.  Clinton  resented  the  procedure  as  a  mark 

167  Shirley  to  Clinton,  Aug.  13,  1748,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  436. 

168  Cf.  letters  of  Shirley  and  Clinton  in  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  432,  436;  and  Clin¬ 
ton’s  address  to  the  Assembly  in  Assembly  Journal,  II,  243;  also  Clinton  to  Board 
of  Trade,  Oct.  30,  1748,  p.  458. 

169  Assembly  Journal,  II,  243;  also  entry  for  Oct.  19,  1748. 


340 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


of  disrespect.  His  avowal  that  he  would  not  assent  to  any 
salary  bill  under  the  form  lately  devised  made  matters  worse. 
He  had  requested  of  the  two  messengers  a  copy  of  the 
address  before  receiving  it  officially,  which  was  indignantly 
resented,  and  the  House  resolved  that  such  action  was  a 
violation  of  their  rights  and  privileges,  tending  to  overthrow 
even  the  constitution  of  the  colony.  The  Assembly  then 
printed  their  address  and  charged  the  Governor  with  a 
“Breach  of  Solemn  Promise,  and  with  a  Violation  of  Rights 
and  Privileges.”  Again  Clinton  accused  them  of  lack  of 
respect,  with  a  reminder  that  the  newspapers  and  the  popu¬ 
lace  was  not  the  tribunal  for  obtaining  redress.  If  they 
must  have  redress,  the  proper  resort  was  the  King’s  ministers; 
but  they  had  practically  arraigned  the  King’s  Governor 
before  his  own  subjects.  What  would  the  King  think?  And 
to  give  “Time,  cooly  to  consider  —  the  Consequences,”  he 
prorogued  the  Assembly.  It  was  over  six  months  before 
they  again  met.170 

In  the  mean  time  Clinton  sent  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  an 
account  of  what  he  considered  the  encroachments  of  the 
Assembly.171  Among  other  things,  he  stated  that  the  King’s 
Governor  no  longer  controlled  a  farthing  of  the  revenue,  and 
that  he  could  neither  appoint  nor  remove  his  own  officers. 
This,  added  to  the  fact  that  the  Council  was  now  also 
against  him,172  indicates  the  extent  of  the  “clipping”  of 
power  done  by  the  Assembly.  Toward  the  end  of  1748 
Clinton  admitted  his  helplessness: 

Till  I  shall  receive  his  Majesty’s  Instructions  in  relation  to  the 
matter  in  Debates  between  the  Assembly  and  me,  it  can  be  to 
no  purpose  for  me  to  meet  the  Assembly  of  this  Province.173 

170  Assembly  Journal ,  II,  247,  257jf.,  especially  entries  for  Oct.  21  and  26,  1748. 
Prorogued  from  Nov.  12,  1748,  to  March  and  June,  1749. 

171  The  Present  State  of  the  Province  of  New  York,  in  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  461^p. 

172  Ibid.,  p.  462. 

173  Clinton  to  Board  of  Trade,  Nov.  15,  1748,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  469. 


NEW  YORK 


341 


The  increased  activity  of  Delancey  in  rousing  the  people 
against  him,  his  own  protracted  sick  spells,  and  the  dis¬ 
turbances  due  to  the  impending  French  and  Indian  War  174 
served  to  augment  existing  difficulties. 

But  Clinton  was  bent  upon  regaining  lost  powers.  In  the 
summer  session  of  1749  the  struggle  was  renewed.175  Again 
he  demanded  a  support  bill  according  to  the  royal  instruc¬ 
tions.  The  control  of  moneys  by  the  House,  even  after 
grants  were  made,  he  referred  to  as  follows: 

There  are  Laws  of  this  Province  now  in  force,  granting  to  his 
Majesty,  Funds  for  the  support  of  his  Government;  there  is 
money  in  the  Treasury  for  this  purpose  and  yet  —  he  cannot 
make  use  of  one  farthing  of  it.176 

Then,  point-blank  he  demanded  whether  or  not  they  in¬ 
tended  to  obey  the  instructions  by  granting  a  fixed  support, 
and  declared  that  until  the  answer  came,  no  business  would 
be  done.  The  House,  however,  could  not  perceive  wherein 
they  had  refused  obedience  to  the  instructions.  The  dif¬ 
ference  of  opinion  in  this  regard  was  due  merely  to  the 
difference  in  their  interpretation  of  the  same  instructions. 
These  called  for  a  sufficient  support;  the  Assembly  was 
granting  it  by  their  annual  support  bill;  therefore  they  were 
neither  disabling  the  executive  nor  disobeying  the  King’s 
command. 

As  to  the  public  debts  which  Clinton  had  reminded  them 
were  yet  unpaid,  the  Assembly  laid  the  blame  at  his  own 
feet.  They  had  passed  a  bill  for  the  purpose,  but  he  himself 
had  prevented  payment  and  caused  injury  to  creditors  by 
his  late  prorogation.  Before  meeting  the  House  to  receive 
this  address  he  requested  a  copy.  This  fanned  higher  the 
flame  of  opposition.  The  House  immediately  declared  the 

174  Clinton  to  Bedford,  Feb.  24,  1749.  Ibid.,  p.  475;  also  pp.  487-517,  passim. 

176  Session  opened  June  27,  1749,  Assembly  Journal,  II,  279. 

176  Assembly  Journal,  II,  259 ff. 


342 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


request  to  be  absolutely  “contrary  to  the  course  of  parlia¬ 
mentary  Proceedings,”  and  resolved,  nemine  contradicente , 
“that  his  Excellency  has  no  right  to  insist  on  any  such 
copy.”  Clinton  reminded  them  of  his  right  as  Governor  to 
know  what  passed  in  the  House,  and  could  not  see  “how  his 
Excellency  comes  under  the  course  of  parliamentary  Pro¬ 
ceedings.”  His  refusal  to  receive  officially  a  communication 
of  which  he  knew  nothing  might  cover  a  “Design  to  make 
him  (by  surprise)  receive  what  it  is  not  proper  to  receive.”  177 

Later  on,  however,  he  replied  to  the  address,  retorting  with 
the  Assembly’s  favorite  charge  and  justification,  i.e.,  dis¬ 
honesty  in  the  application  of  appropriations.  Moreover,  if 
they  maintained  that  the  question  of  support  was  one  of 
interpretation  only,  then  the  interpretation  was  provided 
for  in  a  bill  just  then  before  Parliament,  which  considered 
means  of  enforcing  a  more  permanent  revenue  in  the  colonies. 
He  demanded  then  a  “categorical  Answer”  as  to  whether  or 
not  they  would  grant  a  more  permanent  revenue.178 

In  an  indignant  reply  the  Assembly  denied  all  of  Clinton’s 
allegations  and  presented  proofs.  As  to  his  question 
“whether  any  Man  could  say  the  Governor  had  invaded  his 
Liberty  or  Property”  they  enumerated: 

The  breaking  open  the  store  House  at  Albany;  the  Letters 
wrote  to  the  Judge,  Clerk,  and  Sheriff  of  Dutchess  County,  re¬ 
questing  them  to  put  a  stop  to  Proceedings  in  Cases  of  Private 
Property;  the  Attempt  made  to  restrain  the  Liberty  of  the 
Press,  and  other  things  of  the  like  kind  .  .  .179 

And  how,  they  asked,  could  they  be  expected  to  relinquish 
control  of  the  people’s  money  to  the  power  of  Governors 
impinged  upon  them  from  afar,  strangers,  men  with  no 
common  interests  in  the  province,  with  uncertain  tenure  of 

177  Assembly  Journal,  II,  pp.  259,  261^.  Prorogation  occurred  on  July  5,  1749. 

178  Assembly  Journal,  II,  265. 

179  Ibid.,  p.  266. 


NEW  YORK 


343 


office,  and  therefore  under  the  necessity  of  acquiring  as 
much  spoil  as  possible,  men  who  in  every  fact  had  already 
embezzled  the  province  moneys.  Then,  unequivocally,  they 
gave  their  “categorical  Answer”: 

We  must  declare  to  your  Excellency  that  we  cannot  answer  it 
to  our  Constituents,  to  pass  any  bill  for  raising  money  on  them, 
and  leave  it  to  be  disposed  of  at  the  will  and  pleasure  of  a  Governor; 
and  this  we  hope  your  Excellency  will  accept  for  a  categorical 
Answer.180 

They  further  declared  that  they  were  only  too  anxious 
to  settle  all  disputes,  and  to  do  so  were  willing  to  grant 
support  every  year,  even  as  they  had  done  ever  since  the 
Governor’s  arrival.  In  fact,  the  very  session  then  in  progress 
was  a  cause  of  great  sacrifice,  taking  them  from  the  harvest. 
For  the  public  welfare,  however,  the  sacrifice  would  be 
cheerfully  borne. 

Clinton  refused  to  receive  this  address,  and  because 
support  according  to  instructions  had  been  denied,  he  de¬ 
termined  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  King.  All  he  now  asked 
was  payment  of  the  public  debts. 

The  refusal  caused  a  profound  stir,  the  Assembly  con¬ 
struing  it  into  further  denial  of  access  to  the  Governor,  and 
a  consequent  breach  of  their  privileges.  They  resolved, 
therefore,  to  pay  no  debts  or  any  other  public  services  until 
assurance  of  rectifying  the  matter  was  given.  Clinton,  de¬ 
claring  that  he  would  place  this  matter  also  before  the  King, 
again  urged  them  not  to  refuse,  because  of  animosity  toward 
him,  to  pay  debts  justly  due  to  others.  Relief  measures  for 
the  prisoners  in  Canada  received  special  emphasis.  The 
House,  however,  would  make  no  advances.181 

Absolute  deadlock  resulted.  Each  day  the  House  met 
according  to  form,  but  immediately  adjourned.  For  nearly 

180  Assembly  Journal,  II,  p.  267. 

181  Assembly  Journal,  II,  July  18,  pp.  268,  270,  271. 


344 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


two  weeks  affairs  of  the  government  were  at  a  complete 
standstill.  Clinton  finally  convened  the  Assembly  on  Aug. 
4,  1749,  saying,  among  other  things: 

You  pride  yourselves  on  some  Occasion,  in  following  the  Prece¬ 
dents  in  Parliament;  I  think  you  cannot  show  one  Session  of 
Parliament,  in  which  not  one  Bill  was  read;  yet  this  is  the  case 
of  this  Present  session;  and  this  makes  it  evident,  that  you  met 
together  with  a  view,  not  to  heal  past,  but  to  create  new  Differ¬ 
ences  .  .  ,182 

Then  followed  successive  prorogations  until  a  full  year 
had  passed,  with  the  support  question  still  unsettled.  At 
the  next  election  only  six  new  members  were  returned,  a 
fact  that  implied  further  opposition.  Nevertheless,  the  first 
session  was  surprisingly  harmonious.  Three  months  passed 
without  an  exchange  of  recriminations.  On  each  side  there 
was  sufficient  capitulation  to  avoid  absolute  deadlock.  The 
Assembly  waived  its  resolution  not  to  pass  any  bills  before 
the  “Breach  of  Privileges”  was  rectified,  and  the  Governor 
seemed  willing  to  accept  the  revenue  for  one  year  only. 
Other  bills  also  were  passed.183 

Clinton’s  letter  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  however,  written 
shortly  after  the  first  prorogation  in  November,  1750,  indi¬ 
cates  that  the  struggle  was  far  from  ending.  And  the  fact 
that  during  the  summer  of  1751  he  felt  it  had  become  neces¬ 
sary  to  return  to  England  is  significant.184  At  this  period, 
also,  he  was  anxiously  awaiting  additional  instructions  from 
the  King  before  renewing  the  strife.  In  fact,  he  depended 
altogether  upon  these  to  check  the  Assembly.  The  delay 
in  their  arrival  probably  explains  his  policy  of  long  proroga¬ 
tions  at  this  time.185 

182  Assembly  Journal,  II,  p.  271. 

183  Assembly  Journal,  II,  271,  Sept.  4,  1750;  also  pp.  277-306. 

184  Clinton  to  Board  of  Trade,  Dec.  2,  1750,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  599;  cf.  also 
pp.  717,  727. 

185  Assembly  Journal,  II,  310.  No  business  done  from  June  to  October,  1751. 
Cf.  Shirley’s  letter  to  Clinton,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  436. 


NEW  YORK 


345 


After  the  Assembly  did  meet,  however,  Clinton  wrote  to 
the  Lords  of  Trade  that  appropriations  were  so  made  that 
“not  one  farthing”  could  the  Governor  apply  for  salaries  of 
officers  or  for  Indian  affairs.  It  was  then  that  he  vielded  and 

t/ 

accepted  the  annual  grant.  The  Assembly  was  dissolved  a 
few  days  later  and  did  not  meet  for  nearly  a  year.186 

The  next  session  was  comparatively  peaceful,  as  was  also 
the  following  one,  owing,  perhaps,  to  the  fact  that  tidings 
had  come  of  the  drawing  up  by  the  Privy  Council  of  a  very 
long  and  detailed  report  of  conditions  in  New  York.187  This 
fact,  or  the  consideration  of  its  consequences,  may  have 
induced  moderation  in  the  Assembly. 

Thereafter  there  was  little  conflict,  although  the  forces 
of  opposition  had  not  lost  their  power.  Needless  to  say, 
Clinton’s  administration  left  the  people  even  more  dissatisfied 
with  England’s  method  of  rule,  more  estranged  in  their 
allegiance,  and  more  strongly  intrenched  in  their  control  of 
both  Governor  and  government.  The  representatives  were 
by  that  time  practically  dictating  their  own  policies;  and 
the  “instructions”  of  the  King,  the  “wishes”  of  the  ministry, 
even  the  “duties”  of  the  Governor  had  either  to  give  way 
or  see  the  government  in  confusion  because  of  lack  of  sup¬ 
port.  The  “dependence”  of  the  colony  might  almost  be 
said  to  have  been  only  nominal. 

At  last,  however,  Clinton’s  messages  to  the  ministry  on 
the  need  of  definite  instructions  to  curb  the  Assembly  took 
effect  in  the  commission  given  to  the  new  Governor,  Daniel 
Osborne.  It  is  probable  that  the  ministry  was  influenced 
also  by  the  above  mentioned  report  of  the  Privy  Council.188 

186  Clinton  to  Board  of  Trade,  Nov.  19,  1751,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  749.  Assembly 
Journal ,  II,  327,  328.  Dissolved  Nov.  25,  1751;  met  Oct.  24,  1752. 

187  This  report  is  given  in  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  614-703.  It  covers  nearly  one 
hundred  pages,  and  is  a  careful  account  of  all  acts  of  Assembly  and  Governor  bear¬ 
ing  on  the  prerogative  and  its  infringement. 

188  Cf.  Clinton’s  letters  in  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  762,  764  and  passim.  Instruc¬ 
tions  are  given  in  Assembly  Journal,  II,  353;  cf.  also  Eugene  F.  McCokmac, 
Colonial  Opposition  to  Imperial  Authority  during  the  French  and  Indian  War,  pp.  26jf. 


346 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


These  new  instructions  referred  to  the  Assembly’s  “sub¬ 
version”  of  the  government,  and  ordered  the  Governor  to 
insist  upon  complete  restoration  of  the  powers  of  the  pre¬ 
rogative.  In  particular,  he  was  to  demand  a  permanent, 
solid  support,  indefinite  in  duration.  The  phrasing  evidently 
aimed  at  preventing  cavil  regarding  the  interpretation,  as 
had  been  previously  done  when  simply  “sufficient”  support 
had  been  demanded.189 

Upon  Osborne’s  arrival  there  was  manifest  rejoicing.  As 
the  new  Governor,  accompanied  by  Clinton,  proceeded 
through  the  crowded  streets,  the  latter  was  greeted  with 
every  mark  of  hostility.  According  to  the  story,  the  pros¬ 
pect  —  or  lack  of  prospect  —  of  attaining  any  agreement  to 
his  distasteful  instructions  so  preyed  upon  Osborne’s  already 
melancholy  mind  that  on  the  second  day  after  his  arrival  he 
hanged  himself.190 

This  placed  the  colony  under  Lieutenant-Governor  De- 
lancey,  leader  of  the  popular  party  and  the  man  who  had 
done  most  to  have  Clinton  ousted  from  office.  Even  so 
popular  a  man,  however,  could  hardly  expect  harmony  with 
the  Assembly  when  he  had  to  enforce  instructions  forbidding 
to  the  Assembly  two  powers  most  jealously  guarded,  —  sup¬ 
port  by  annual  grants,  and  legislative  application  of  appro¬ 
priations  to  specific  purposes.  There  were  other  prohibitions 
also,  which  were  designed  as  checks.191 

Throughout  his  administration  Delancey  endeavored  to 
maintain  a  position  of  compromise.  His  situation  was  a 
difficult  one  as  leader  of  the  popular  faction,  with  the  official 

189  Assembly  Journal ,  II,  359. 

190  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  183. 

191  Cf.  Assembly  Journal,  II,  353.  Some  authors  disagree  as  to  whether  the 
Assembly  was  herein  denied  the  right  even  to  inspect  the  treasury  accounts.  Ban¬ 
croft,  op.  cit..  Ill,  104,  and  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  193,  assert  the  affirmative;  McCor- 
mac,  op.  cit.,  p.  28,  the  negative.  Examination  of  the  instructions  themselves 
shows  that  this  right  was  expressly  granted  to  the  Assembly.  Cf.  Assembly  Journal , 
II,  353. 


NEW  YORK 


347 


duty  of  enforcing  the  prerogative.  In  his  first  address,  after 
expressing  hope  that  the  members  would  “pay  a  due  regard 
to  his  Majesty’s  Pleasure,”  Delancey  announced  among  other 
prohibitions  the  two  clauses  of  the  instructions  regarding  the 
annual  support  and  the  control  of  funds  after  they  had  been 
granted.  The  Assembly  repudiated  the  insinuations  of  dis¬ 
loyalty,  which  the  instructions  certainly  strongly  implied, 
and  cited  as  causes  for  existing  troubles  the  maladministra¬ 
tion  of  Governor  Clinton.  It  hoped  also  that  a  method  of 
support  that  had  been  successful  for  sixteen  years  would 
meet  with  no  objection  from  Delancey.  This  was  a  flat  dis¬ 
regard  for  the  King’s  command.  The  cautious  Lieutenant- 
Governor  replied  that  he  would  willingly  assent  to  all  acts 
that  agreed  with  His  Majesty’s  instructions.192 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  just  one  day  before 
he  made  this  reply,  and  the  very  day  after  they  had  virtually 
rejected  the  instructions,  there  had  been  passed  an  annual ,  not 
a  permanent,  support  bill.  This  was  rejected  in  the  Council. 
An  idea  of  the  Assembly’s  attitude  on  this  article  39  of  the 
instructions,  which  commanded  a  permanent  revenue,  can 
be  had  from  the  following  fact:  The  New  York  Mercury 
printed  article  39,  whereupon  the  Assembly  cited  the  respon¬ 
sible  party,  demanding  by  what  authority  the  article  had 
been  printed.  A  severe  reprimand  followed.193  Later  on 
they  sent  to  the  Lords  Commissioners  of  Trade  and  Planta¬ 
tions  a  representation  purporting  to  prove  that  Clinton  had 
himself  been  the  occasion  of  all  disputes  in  the  colony.  His 
privateering  for  profit,  his  hiring  out  for  that  purpose  the 
King’s  own  cannon,  his  causing  the  terrible  Saratoga 
massacre  by  withdrawing  troops,  his  embezzling  moneys 
appropriated  for  Indian  presents,  his  demanding  supplies 
for  two  Indian  companies,  together  with  salaries  for  officers 
of  the  same,  when  the  two  companies  never  existed,  — 

192  Assembly  Journal,  II,  351,  353jf.,  Nov.  6  and  8,  1753. 

193  Ibid.,  pp.  354,  362,  358jf.,  especially  entry  for  Nov.  27,  1753. 


348 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


these  and  other  causes  of  conflict  were  cited.  Then  they 
approached  the  great  matter  in  question.  The  annual 
support  bill,  they  said,  had  been  introduced  as  a  necessary 
safeguard  against  embezzlement,  by  Governors,  of  the  public 
moneys;  and  sixteen  years  of  experience  had  proved  this 
method  to  be  more  just  and  more  efficient  than  any 
other.194 

The  King,  by  advice  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  rejected  this 
memorial,  and  the  Board  wrote  to  Delancey  that  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  “flatter  themselves  in  vain  if  they  think  to  thus 
continue  their  unconstitutional  encroachments.’'  195  A  storm 
was  in  prospect. 

On  the  same  day  that  the  above  mentioned  representation 
was  drawn  up,  Delancey  prorogued  the  Assembly,  with  a 
reminder  that  the  one-year  support  bill  was  a  violation  of 
His  Majesty’s  instructions.196 

The  next  meeting  was  held  in  the  spring  of  1754,  because 
of  the  increasing  dangers  from  the  French  and  Indians. 
Delancey’s  opening  address  stressed  the  need  of  military 
supplies,  and  of  provision  to  “repel  Force  by  Force”  in 
case  of  invasion.  On  the  ground  that  the  colony  was  not  yet 
invaded,  the  Assembly  withheld  supplies.  In  grants  for 
other  purposes  made  at  this  time,  they  maintained,  in  spite 
of  the  new  instructions,  full  power  in  the  disposal  of  appro¬ 
priations.  To  the  bill  for  these  grants,  the  Council  objected 
because  by  it  appropriations  were  to  be  issued,  not,  as  the 
instructions  directed,  by  warrant  from  the  Governor,  but 
upon  receipt  from  the  province  treasurer,  an  official 
responsible  to  the  Assembly.  The  House,  however,  refused 
even  a  conference  on  the  matter,  because  the  dispute 

194  Assembly  Journal,  II,  369jf.  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  192,  says  that  Clinton’s 
account  of  expenses  amounted  to  £84,000,  and  that  “it  was  supposed”  he  returned 
to  England  with  most  of  it. 

195  Memorial  is  given  in  Journal,  ibid.,  p.  369.  Chalmers,  op.  cit.,  II,  317. 

196  Assembly  Journal,  II,  372,  Dec.  12,  1753. 


NEW  YORK 


349 


regarded  a  money  bill,  over  which  the  Council  had  no  au¬ 
thority  of  amendment.197 

Delancey  at  this  juncture  announced  a  twenty-four  hour 
prorogation.  His  situation  was  becoming  more  and  more 
delicate.  Popularity  and  duty  were  opposed,  and  it  would 
be  difficult  to  compromise  longer.  For  a  time  he  managed 
to  do  so  by  leaving  to  the  Council  the  odium  of  restricting 
the  House.  On  the  day  following  the  prorogation,  he 
expressed  regret  at  the  difficulties  with  the  bill,  but  felt 
certain  that  the  Councillors  “were  pressed”  to  refusal  “by 
sense  of  duty,”  and  he  hoped  that  the  House  would  now 
“so  frame  the  Rill  so  as  not  to  lay  the  Council  under  any 
Difficulty  of  passing  it.”  198 

In  spite  of  Delancey’s  assiduous  compromise  policy,  a 
deadlock  ensued.  In  three  weeks  he  was  himself  in  conflict 
with  the  House.  His  remonstrances,  however,  brought  no 
change;  and  declaring  that  he  would  place  the  matter  before 
the  King,  he  dismissed  the  Assembly.199 

About  the  same  time,  he  wrote  to  the  Board  of  Trade: 

After  all  my  endeavors,200  I  could  not  prevail  upon  them  to 
give  me  one  farthing  for  this  service201  —  or  to  enable  me  to  raise 
men  for  the  assistance  of  Virginia  —  the  Assembly  on  the  one 
hand  will  not  recede,  and  the  Council  on  the  other  will  not  give 
in  to  the  Assembly’s  method.202 

Then  for  the  benefit  of  the  Assembly,  which  would  eventually 
hear  of  his  words  from  the  agent  in  England,  he  remarked 
that  under  the  pressing  circumstances  he  would  himself 

197  Assembly  Journal,  II,  373 ff.,  377/f. 

198  Ibid.,  pp.  381  ff.  Prorogation  ordered  on  May  1,  1754. 

199  Ibid.,  pp.  384 ff.  Next  meeting  was  arranged  for  August,  1754. 

200  These  ‘‘endeavors,”  due  to  his  compromise  policy,  were  very  cautious  and 
very  meagre.  Cf.  Journal,  passim,  in  his  administration. 

201  Supplies  for  two  companies  to  be  sent  to  Virginia  against  the  French  and 
Indians.  Cf.  Journal,  II,  384. 

202  Delancey  to  Board  of  Trade,  May  21,  1754,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  868. 


350 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


have  assented  to  the  supply  bill  as  it  stood;  the  Council , 
however,  was  the  objector,  and  therefore  to  blame. 

During  the  same  summer  of  1754,  the  public  danger  had 
increased.  Franklin’s  well  known  plan  of  union  for  the 
colonies  comes  to  mind  at  this  point.  Perhaps  it  was  in  part 
occasioned  by  the  news  of  Washington’s  defeat  near  the 
Ohio.  At  any  rate,  these  general  conditions  and  in  particular 
the  defeat  of  the  colonial  troops  were  made  the  basis  of 
Delancey’s  next  appeal  for  supplies.  The  Assembly  could 
no  longer  deny  an  actual  invasion,  and  therefore  promised 
aid  to  Virginia,  later  granting  £5,000  for  the  purpose.203 

Delancey’s  popularity  was  already  on  the  wane.  His 
position  as  official  advocate  of  the  prerogative,  his  inability 
to  reward  all  his  political  tools,  and  the  hostile  activities  of 
Clinton’s  friends  had  been  undermining  his  hold  on  the 
popular  faction.  The  exact  turning  point  from  favor  to 
disfavor  is  not  easy  to  determine;  but  by  the  time  he  had 
announced,  in  November,  1754,  a  report  from  the  Lords 
Commissioners  of  Trade  and  Plantations  disapproving,  not 
only  the  method  of  annual  grants  and  control  of  same  by 
provisions  for  their  application,  but  also  issues  of  paper 
money  designed  to  be  legal  tender  —  by  this  time,  it  may  be 
said  that  compromise  was  no  longer  possible.  Each  side  had 
taken  a  definite  stand.204 

The  Assembly,  moreover,  denied  any  intention  of  infringing 
upon  the  prerogative  by  refusing  permanent  support,  and 
declared  itself  most  anxious  to  conform  to  the  instructions. 
But  neighboring  colonies,  with  similar  instructions,  were 
making  only  annual  grants;  why  not  New  York  also? 
Moreover,  New  York  had  a  precedent  going  back  sixteen 
years;  therefore  the  Assembly  bluntly  declared:  “In 
faithfulness  to  the  people  of  his  Majesty’s  loyal  colony,  we 
can  by  no  means  recede  from  it.”205 

203  Assembly  Journal,  II,  385-388. 

204  Assembly  Journal,  II,  409,  Nov.  21,  1754. 

205  Ibid.,  p.  412. 


NEW  YORK 


351 


Then,  on  the  paper  money  issue,  they  proposed  an  ulti¬ 
matum.  Since  the  ministry  forbade  its  use  as  legal  tender 
the  money  was  useless.  They  determined,  therefore,  to 
proceed  to  no  business  regarding  supplies  until  they  knew 
more  of  the  ministry’s  intentions  in  this  regard.  Not  to 
render  the  colony  defenseless,  however,  they  waived  this 
resolution  to  the  extent  of  providing  for  urgently  needed 
fortifications  on  the  Hudson.206 

Delancey’s  reply  to  the  above  was  cautious.  Their  atti¬ 
tude  toward  the  instructions  requiring  a  permanent  revenue 
was  most  tenderly  passed  over,  with  no  direct  remonstrance, 
and  with  only  indirect  reference  to  their  duty,  made  in  form 
of  the  question:  “Will  not  this  Method  have  the  Effect  that 
is  apprehended  —  that  is,  of  wresting  from  the  King’s 
governor,  his  powers?”  207 

From  this  time  down  to  the  arrival  of  the  next  Governor, 
the  Assembly  Journal  shows  no  evidence  of  open  conflict. 
Delancey  was  careful  never  to  bring  matters  to  an  issue, 
especially  on  the  question  of  permanent  support.  His  policy 
is  indicated  in  his  letter  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  which, 
after  mentioning  how  former  Governors  in  their  attempts  to 
enforce  a  more  permanent  support  had  tried  the  harsh 
measures  of  dissolution,  etc.,  only  to  fail,  he  expressed  his 
own  justification  in  employing  “the  softest  measures  he 
could.”  But  since  these  also  were  to  no  purpose,  why  con¬ 
tinue  difficulties,  when  “the  principle  members  frankly  told 
me,  I  might  dissolve  them  as  often  as  I  please,  —  they  would 
never  give  it  up,”  208  that  is,  the  custom  of  supporting  the 
government  by  annual  grants.  This  policy  of  compromise 
was  probably  the  consideration  that  influenced  Delancey’s 
subsequent  assent  to  the  paper  money  issue  referred  to 
above.  Even  his  lost  salary  was  not  a  sufficient  incentive  to 

206  Assembly  Journal ,  II,  p.  412. 

207  Ibid.,  p.  420,  Nov.  28,  1754. 

208  Delancey  to  Board  of  Trade,  Jan.  3,  1754,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  820. 


352 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


make  him  urge  upon  the  Assembly  the  passage  of  a  perma¬ 
nent  revenue  bill.209 

The  Assembly’s  attitude  on  other  measures,  wherein  they 
saw  no  infringement  of  their  rights,  was  eminently  praise¬ 
worthy.  Chalmers  gives  them  high  approbation  for  vigorous 
co-operation  when  the  French  and  Indian  war  became  a 
positive  menace.210 

Delancey’s  whole  policy  was  one  of  compromise,  based 
on  self-interest.  Except  for  a  more  smooth  veneer,  he  was 
a  politician  of  the  Belcher  type,  perhaps  not  so  well  meaning. 
Characteristics  similar  to  Belcher’s  are  seen  in  his  facility  of 
exchanging  allegiances  and  of  adopting  opposite  political 
principles.  In  Governor  Cosby’s  time  Delancey  had  received 
signal  appointment,  and  with  Cosby  he  was  on  the  side  of 
the  prerogative.  When  Clinton  came  he  remained  a  pre¬ 
rogative  man  until  the  office  of  chief  justice  was  conferred 
on  him  during  good  behavior,  thus  making  him  practically 
secure  in  it.  Then,  apparently  noting  the  Assembly’s  grow¬ 
ing  power,  he  “swung  around  the  circle,”  opposed  Clinton, 
became  leader  of  the  opposition,  and  did  much  to  drive  his 
benefactor  from  office.  His  own  term  found  him  attempting 
to  maintain  a  double  allegiance.  His  correspondence  with 
the  home  government,  which  was  prudently  meagre,  was 
usually  so  worded  as  to  lead  the  ministry  into  the  supposition 
that  he  was  trying  with  all  his  “endeavors”  to  enforce  his 
instructions;  yet  there  is  never  a  direct  repudiation  of  the 
Assembly’s  loyalty,  though  he  does  state,  without  comment, 
the  fact  of  disregard  of  the  King’s  orders.  When  the  new 
Governor,  Sir  Charles  Hardy,  arrived,  Delancey  settled  back 
into  his  old  anti-prerogative  philosophy.211 

209  Cf.  his  justification  for  giving  assent,  ibid.,  p.  940.  Until  December,  1754,  no 
supply  bill  became  law.  Hence  Delancey  was  without  salary.  Proposed  bills  had 
been  annual;  therefore  his  rejection  of  them.  His  instruction  forbade  approval 
except  to  permanent  support  bills.  Cf.  Delancey  to  Board  of  Trade,  N.  Y.  Col. 
Doc.,  VI,  928. 

210  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  315. 

211  Cf.  his  letters  in  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  passim. 


NEW  YORK 


353 


Delancey  again  held  office  after  Sir  Charles  had  resigned 
to  pursue  a  military  career  that  was  more  to  his  liking. 
During  this  second  term,  which  began  in  July,  1757,  and 
lasted  three  years,  there  was  practically  no  friction  with  the 
Assembly,  due  probably  to  the  great  pressure  and  really  dire 
straits  caused  by  the  war. 

Two  factors  may  have  then  contributed  to  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  a  new  Governor.  The  French  and  Indian  war  re¬ 
quired  a  leader  with  military  experience,  in  which  respect 
Sir  Charles  Hardy  was  well  fitted.  The  ministry,  moreover, 
had  determined  upon  a  more  lenient  policy  regarding  the 
support  question.212  It  may  therefore  have  preferred  to 
introduce  this  policy  through  a  new  Governor,  rather  than 
oblige  the  old  one  to  admit  practical  defeat.  The  new  in¬ 
structions  were  so  altered  as  to  permit  the  Governor  in  case 
of  emergencies,  as  when  the  security  of  the  province  might 
be  endangered,  to  accept  temporary  grants,  even  though  a 
law  for  permanent  revenue  had  not  been  passed.  In  emer¬ 
gencies  also  he  was  “at  liberty  to  assent  to  a  law  for  issuing 
a  reasonable  quantity  of  paper  money  bills.”  213  Although 
the  leniency  applied  only  to  times  of  urgent  need,  it  was  the 
first  step  in  the  general  capitulation  that  was  soon  to  follow 
regarding  the  conflict  over  permanent  support. 

Governor  Hardy’s  first  address  fired  the  House  to  increased 
opposition.  It  was  a  blunt,  soldier-like  command  to  obey 
the  King’s  instruction  that  required  a  “permanent  Revenue” 
by  a  “  Law  indefinite  and  without  Limitation  of  Time.”  The 
Assembly  refused,  declaring  that  “almost  every  Individual 
in  the  Colony  opposed  a  permanent  revenue.”  Hardy 
tersely  reiterated  the  King’s  order,  and  later  wrote  to  the 
Lords  of  Trade  to  explain  the  difficulty  of  enforcing  the 
revenue  instructions  in  New  York,  while  neighboring  colonies 

212  Lords  of  Trade  to  Lords  Justices,  April  22,  1755,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  948. 
In  this  letter  the  policy  is  outlined. 

213  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  949. 


354 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


enjoyed  at  the  same  time  a  practical  exemption.  He  added 
that  “into  every  other  measure  the  Assembly  seemed  very 
well  inclined  to  come.”  214 

Up  to  this  time,  although  the  House  had  refused  to  pass 
a  permanent  support  bill,  there  had  been  as  yet  no  open  con¬ 
flict,  because  the  instructions  had  not  been  directly  violated 
by  the  attempt  to  pass  a  temporary  bill.  This  attempt  came 
in  January,  1756,  in  a  bill  providing  support  for  one  year.215 

Meantime,  the  need  of  war  supplies  had  become  in¬ 
creasingly  urgent.  The  Governor  asked,  as  the  colony’s 
quota  for  the  following  year,  1,000  men.  Pending  decision 
on  the  support  bill,  which  was  yet  before  the  Council,  the 
Assembly  delayed  action.  The  policy  was  to  manipulate 
this  war  bill  as  a  lever  to  force  through  the  recreant  tempo¬ 
rary  support.  Their  best  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  quota 
went  no  further  than  to  pass  favorable  resolutions,  thus 
gaining  time  while  still  awaiting  the  fate  of  the  support  bill. 
After  two  weeks  Hardy  again  urged  the  growing  need  of 
filling  the  colony’s  quota.216  It  was  three  days  before  a  bill 
for  the  purpose  appeared.  Meantime  the  Council  had  not 
spoken.  Then  followed  a  succession  of  adjournments,  and 
finally  a  request  to  the  Governor  for  an  indefinite  post¬ 
ponement  of  business  until  the  quota  regulations  of  neighbor¬ 
ing  colonies  could  be  ascertained.  Although  the  delayed  bill 
had  now  passed  the  second  reading,  final  action  was  post¬ 
poned  until  the  information  should  arrive.  The  lever  was 
not  unemployed.  Meantime,  Hardy  had  written  to  the 
Lords  of  Trade  to  say  that  further  insistence  on  even  a  five- 
year  support  bill  would  result  in  loss  of  the  quota  bill.217 

214  Assembly  Journal ,  II,  461,  464,  and  entry  for  Dec.  10,  1755;  cf.  also  Hardy 
to  Lords  of  Trade,  Dec.  18,  1755,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VI,  1023. 

215  Assembly  Journal,  II,  479,  Jan.  30,  1756. 

216  Assembly  Journal,  II,  478,  483,  Jan.  27  and  Feb.  16,  1756. 

217  The  Assembly  was  not  therefore  lax  in  providing  for  the  war.  Hardy  him¬ 
self  praised  their  generosity  in  granting  £40,000  in  paper  money.  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc., 
VI,  37;  cf.  also  Hardy  to  Lords  of  Trade,  Feb.  23,  1756,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VII,  38. 


NEW  YORK 


355 


At  the  end  of  another  month  and  after  many  additional 
adjournments,  a  compromise  was  reached.  The  Assembly 
voted  1,715  men  for  the  war  in  barter  for  the  Governor’s 
assent  to  a  recent  bill  concerning  the  public  debts.218 

Shortly  before  this  transaction,  the  status  of  the  support 
question  had  passed  through  an  interesting  development  in 
England.  The  ministry  had  decided  virtually  to  yield  to 
the  Assembly  and  to  permit  acceptance  by  the  Governors  of 
temporary  grants.  The  Lords  of  Trade  wrote  to  Governor 
Hardy  directing  him  not  to  4 ‘press  the  Establishment  of  a 
permanent  Revenue  for  the  Present.” 

It  is  to  the  great  satisfaction  of  his  Majesty  that  the  present 
Assembly  do  not  appear  to  be  desirous  of  reviving  the  unwar¬ 
rantable  &  illegal  claims  and  pretentions  of  former  Assemblys, 
and  have  declared  that  they  do  not  mean  to  take  upon  them 
the  executive  power  of  the  Government  belonging  of  right  to 
her  Governor;  and  as  you  have  represented,  they  are  well  inclined 
to  concurr  in  every  other  measure,  .  .  .  his  Majesty  is  pleased, 
in  consideration  thereof,  and  of  the  present  situation  of  Affairs, 
when  peace  and  unanimity  and  a  good  understanding  between 
the  Governor  and  his  people  are  so  absolutely  necessary  for  the 
good  of  the  service,  to  direct  that  you  should  not  press  the  es¬ 
tablishment  of  a  permanent  revenue  for  the  present,  and  to  allow 
and  permit  you  to  assent  to  such  temporary  Bills  as  the  Assembly 
shall,  from  time  to  time,  frame  and  pass  for  the  support  of  Govern¬ 
ment.219 

This  letter,  however,  could  hardly  have  reached  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  at  the  time  of  the  above  mentioned  bargain.220  As 
soon  as  Hardy  gave  it  out,  six  months  later  in  the  fall  ses- 

218  Assembly  Journal,  II,  490.  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  280.  Bill  became  law  on  April 
1,  1756. 

219  Lords  of  Trade  to  Governor  Hardy,  March  4,  1756,  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  VII,  40. 

220  The  letter  was  written  on  March  4;  the  compromise  was  effected  on  April  1. 
Only  by  closest  calculation  could  a  packet  of  letters  have  been  delivered  in  America 
in  the  interval. 


356 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


sion  of  1756,  all  friction  ceased.  Money  and  supply  bills 
took  shape  and  passed  like  magic.  Salaries  for  the  past  and 
present  years  were  immediately  provided,  with  an  increase 
for  the  Governor  of  £240.  Altogether,  about  a  dozen  bills, 
mostly  involving  appropriations,  were  passed.221 

In  the  other  disputes  that  occurred  in  the  Assembly  during 
Governor  Hardy’s  time,  he  took  no  great  part.  They  re¬ 
garded  chiefly  the  New  Jersey  and  Massachusetts  boundary 
lines.  At  times  the  bitterness  extended  to  actual  bloodshed. 

On  July  2,  1757,  Hardy,  more  enamored  of  the  art  of 
war  than  of  a  Governor’s  emoluments,  left  the  province  to 
Lieutenant-Governor  Delancey,  who  remained  in  charge  for 
about  three  years.  This  second  administration  of  Delancey 
was  practically  without  conflict.222  His  sudden  death  placed 
the  senior  councillor,  Cadwallader  Colden,  in  command  at 
the  age  of  seventy -three. 

Colden’s  administration,  with  short  interruptions,  lasted 
fifteen  years,  1760-1775.  His  career  in  New  York  politics 
had  been  long  and  unsuccessful.  Opposition  to  the  pliant 
Delancey  and  zeal  for  the  Crown  interests,  displayed  with 
conscientious  tactlessness  for  many  years,  had  placed  him 
among  the  most  unpopular  men  in  the  colony.  He  became 
chief  executive  at  the  climax  of  a  contest  long  waged  by 
England,  and  which  now,  after  nearly  half  a  century,  brought 
fruition  to  the  hearts’  hope  of  the  colonists,  —  the  disappear¬ 
ance  of  New  France.223  The  consequent  rejoicings  may  in 
part  account  for  the  tranquillity  of  Colden’s  first  few  months. 
The  succession  of  George  III,  and  the  feeling  among  bitter 
political  enemies  that  an  old  man  could  be  easily  manipulated, 

221  Assembly  Journal,  II,  500-522. 

222  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  297. 

223  Alice  Mapelsden  Keys,  Cadwallader  Colden,  A  Representative  Eighteenth 
Century  Official,  p.  260.  His  commission  as  Lieutenant-Governor  arrived  on  Aug. 
7,  1761.  Meantime,  as  senior  councillor,  the  rule  devolved  upon  him.  Colden 
Letter  Books,  I,  103. 


NEW  YORK 


357 


together  with  his  approval  of  revenue  and  currency  measures 
that  he  had  once  vigorously  opposed,  —  these  factors  made 
the  first  session  uneventful.  It  was  noted,  also,  that  his 
request  for  support  was  not  accompanied  by  the  usual 
insistence  upon  “duty  to  his  Majesty,”  an  omission  possibly 
planned  by  Golden  as  part  of  his  policy  to  gain  friends  by 
courtesy  and  conciliation.  This  was  almost  necessary, 
because  the  election  of  1759  had  developed  in  the  Assembly 
a  division  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  popular  party.  Again 
at  the  next  election,  occasioned  by  the  death  of  George  II 
in  1761,  the  division  had  become  even  more  marked. 

Colden’s  first  difficulties  arose  over  military  affairs.  Pitt, 
in  order  to  secure  the  territory  recently  ceded  by  France, 
desired  each  colony  to  supply  at  least  two  thirds  of  the 
quotas  previously  employed.  It  was  only  with  great  diffi¬ 
culty  that  Colden  persuaded  the  Assembly  so  to  provide; 
he  was  met  with  absolute  refusal  on  the  question  of  impress¬ 
ment  as  well  as  of  lengthening  the  period  of  military  service.224 
In  May  of  the  following  year,  he  reminded  the  Assembly 
that  the  quotas  were  not  yet  filled,  imputing  the  delay  to 
the  recent  reduction  of  the  bounty,  and  suggesting  in  partial 
remedy  the  impressment  of  vagrants.  The  Assembly  denied 
the  influence  of  the  bounty  reduction,  showing  it,  even 
though  reduced,  to  be  the  highest  in  the  colonies.  It  also 
denied  the  very  fact  of  any  unusual  backwardness,  and 
refused  a  law  to  impress  vagrants,  assuming  that  eventually 
a  sufficient  number  would  enlist.  To  test  the  assumption 
Colden  ordered  an  adjournment  of  ten  days.  Although  the 
House  had  just  denied  the  existence  of  any  unusual  back¬ 
wardness  in  filling  the  quotas,  it  sent,  at  the  next  meeting,  a 
private  message  to  Colden  explaining  the  delay  as  caused  by 
fear  of  being  ordered  with  the  regulars  to  the  West  Indies. 

224  Assembly  Journal,  II,  652,  658.  Colden  Letter  Books,  I,  75,  79,  184.  These 
are  printed  in  N.  Y.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll,  IX,  X,  of  the  Fund  Publications,  1877. 


358 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


As  soon  as  Colden  had  removed  this  fear,  the  bounty  was 
increased,  and  a  law  passed  to  fill  the  quotas.225 

Trouble  of  a  different  nature  arose  upon  discussion  of  the 
legality  of  acts  passed  after  the  death  of  George  II,  and 
before  tidings  had  reached  the  colony.  To  remove  all  doubt 
the  Assembly  passed  a  law  to  legalize  such  acts.  Colden 
vetoed  the  law  on  the  ground  that  it  violated  his  instructions, 
and  was  in  itself  both  unnecessary  and  illogical. 

While  the  King’s  death  is  absolutely  unknown,  it  can  produce 
no  effect.  ...  It  seems  to  me  ...  an  absolute  absurdity  to 
say  that  a  Man  can  be  restrained  in  his  Lawful  acts  by  any  thing 
.  .  .  of  which  it  is  impossible  to  have  any  knowledge.  ...  It 
is  establishing  a  kind  of  Law  Popery  &  productive  of  similar 
consequences.226 

Two  later  attempts  to  pass  the  bill  were  also  defeated, 
and  it  was  dropped  altogether  when  the  Assembly’s  long 
struggle  to  enforce  life  tenure  for  judges  likewise  ended  in 
failure.227  This  latter  struggle,  now  to  be  described,  was 
among  the  most  important  of  the  conflicts  during  Colden’s 
administration. 

More  than  once  the  colony  had  insisted  upon  independence 
between  courts  and  executive.  For  this,  tenure  of  office 
during  good  behavior  and  not  simply  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
Crown  or  of  the  Governor  was  necessary.  The  only  method 
of  removal  that  would  satisfy  the  Assembly  was  a  sort  of 
impeachment,  a  petition  from  the  representatives,  or  the 
advice,  with  signatures,  of  seven  Councillors.  Colden, 
however,  insisted  upon  removal  dependent  upon  the  royal 
pleasure,  also  upon  fixed  and  permanent  salaries  for  the 

225  Assembly  Journal,  II,  700 ff.  Colden  Letter  Books,  I,  205.  Keys,  op.  cit. 
p.  292. 

226  Colden  to  Board  of  Trade,  Letter  Books,  I,  89. 

227  Assembly  Journal,  II,  665,  684,  on  Sept.  3,  and  Dec.  19,  1761.  Cf.  Smith, 
op.  cit.,  II,  367 ff. 


NEW  YORK 


359 


judges.  Both  points  were  refused  by  the  Assembly,  and  he 
therefore  vetoed  the  bill  —  a  favorite  one  —  for  tenure 
during  good  behavior.228 

Foreseeing  that  it  would  again  be  brought  up,  and  antici¬ 
pating,  because  of  its  very  popular  nature,  “great  difficulties 
in  the  administration,”  he  wrote  to  Pitt  hinting  that  he 
might  soon  be  “put  under  a  necessity  to  comply.”  Mean¬ 
time,  he  planned  a  compromise,  intimating  that  approval  of 
the  favorite  bill  would  depend  upon  a  grant  of  fixed  and 
permanent  salaries  to  the  judges.  The  bill,  however,  as 
Colden  again  wrote,  was  introduced  — 

.  .  .  without  making  any  provision  for  the  Judges  Salaries,  tho’ 
they  knew  that  the  principal  objection  .  .  .  was  the  want  of  such 
provision  to  have  equal  continuance  with  their  Commissions.229 

He  therefore  repeated  the  veto,  and  adjourned  the 
Assembly  after  a  session  of  only  ten  days.  Bitterness  was 
fast  increasing,  and  he  expected  still  further  and  much  more 
unpleasant  insistence  on  the  popular  bill.  “The  Assembly 
may  insist  to  have  this  Bill  pass’d  and  perhaps  may  make  it 
a  condition  to  the  support  of  Government .”  At  that  time  all 
officers  of  the  government  were  without  salary.  Colden 
accordingly  requested  from  the  King  positive  instructions 
on  the  matter.230 

Early  in  this  session  also  occurred  an  incident  that  threw 
considerable  light  on  the  relations  between  Colden  and  the 
Assembly.  He  had  permitted  certain  strolling  comedians  to 
“set  up  a  theatre,”  whereupon  a  bill  was  passed  forbidding 
any  “Entertainment  of  the  Stage  in  this  Colony.”  231 

228  Assembly  Journal,  II,  661.  Colden  Letter  Books,  I,  79,  88,  90,  104.  Smith, 
op.  cit.,  II,  3 52/f.  Keys,  op.  cit.,  pp.  274j0\  Cf.  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
Article  III,  Section  I. 

229  Colden  to  Pitt,  Aug.  11,  1761,  Colden  Letter  Books,  I,  105;  also  p.  120. 

230  Colden  Letter  Books,  I,  117.  Assembly  Journal,  II,  663,  669. 

231  Assembly  Journal,  II,  665. 


360 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Meantime,  Robert  Monckton,  the  newly  appointed  Gov¬ 
ernor,  while  awaiting  his  commission,  had  been  living  on 
Staten  Island.  There  he  had  made  many  friends,  had 
studiously  avoided  Colden,  never  once  speaking  in  private 
to  him,  and  had  publicly  intimated  disapproval  of  Colden’s 
attitude  toward  the  tenure  of  office  bill.  He  was  therefore, 
on  the  arrival  of  his  commission  shortly  after  this  last  session, 
greeted  with  much  favor.  In  less  than  a  month,  however, 
he  sailed  away  for  the  conquest  of  Martinique,  when  Colden 
again  assumed  command.232 

Due  to  Monckton’s  attitude  the  general  resentment  had 
increased.  Nevertheless,  the  Lieutenant-Governor  seemed 
anxious  for  the  conflict.  When  the  next  session  opened  he 
took  a  pointed  fling  at  both  bench  and  bar.  Justice,  he  de¬ 
clared,  was  being  frustrated  by  delays  and  by  the  high  fees; 
and  he  therefore  suggested  a  legislative  determination.233 
Immediately  the  Assembly  adverted  to  the  amount  of  the 
fees  charged  by  the  Coldens  themselves  —  the  father,  as 
Lieutenant-Governor,  and  the  son,  as  Surveyor-General,  for 
land  grants;  and  they  declared: 

We  cannot  help  thinking  a  General  Establishment  of  the  Fees 
of  all  the  Officers  of  the  Government  will  put  a  stop  to  these,  as 
well  as  to  several  other  Complaints  of  the  like  nature.234 

In  reply,  Colden  expressed  his  willingness  to  co-operate  in 
any  beneficial  legislation;  but  he  maintained  that  the  As¬ 
sembly  was  not  the  sole  judge  of  the  benefit,  and  declared 

232  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  364.  Keys,  op.  cit.,  pp.  278-280.  Monckton’s  commis¬ 
sion  arrived  Oct.  19,  1761.  He  sailed  on  November  14.  He  had  been  second  in 
command  under  the  brave  Wolfe  in  Canada.  No  instructions  accompanied  his 
commission.  Colden  therefore  made  some  demur  at  yielding  the  headship  of  the 
province.  His  action  was  greatly  resented  by  both  Monckton  and  the  people. 

233  Assembly  Journal ,  II,  669.  The  same  address  recommended  regulation  of  the 
fast  increasing  number  of  “  tippling  houses.” 

234  Assembly  Journal,  II,  672. 


NEW  YORK 


361 


that  he  would  eo-operate  in  nothing  if  the  methods  of  obtain¬ 
ing  benefits  were  — 

.  .  .  inconsistent  with  the  English  Constitution;  or  if  under  Pre¬ 
tence  of  a  Benefit  a  small  dependent  State  may  attempt  to  set 
Bounds  to,  and  restrain  the  Rights  and  prerogative  of  the  King 
of  Great-Britain.235 

Scarcely  a  week  after  this,  the  bill  for  tenure  of  office 
during  good  behavior  again  passed  the  House.236  Before 
the  Council  reported,  Colden  recommended  for  the  chief 
justice  an  increase  in  salary,  which  had  been  unchanged 
since  1715. 

The  purpose  of  the  House  in  this  struggle  was  to  secure 
permanent  tenure  with  temporary  salary  —  thus  at  one 
stroke  lessening  the  power  of  the  Crown  over  the  office  of 
judges  and  increasing  its  own.  To  Colden  the  problem  ap¬ 
peared  in  this  wise:  Inadequate  salary  would  soon  force  the 
chief  justice  to  resign;  then,  in  order  not  to  obstruct  the 
courts  of  justice,  he  would  be  obliged  to  appoint  a  substi¬ 
tute,  but  on  the  Assembly’s  condition  of  tenure  during 
good  behavior.  Otherwise  the  salary  would  be  withheld, 
and  no  one  would  accept  the  appointment.237 

The  struggle,  however,  took  an  unexpected  turn.  With 
the  favorite  bill  still  pending  in  the  Council,  the  House  with¬ 
held  the  support  bill.  About  this  time  it  seems  that  a  new 
difficulty  arose.  Both  House  and  Council  were  opposed  to 
the  newly  appointed  chief  justice,  Pratt.  The  Council  was 
willing  enough  to  pass  the  tenure  of  office  bill,  but  feared  that 
Colden  would  then  seat  the  new  and  objectionable  chief 
justice  during  good  behavior,  while  leaving  the  other 
justices  as  they  were.  Therefore  to  the  civil  list,  which  pro- 

235  Assembly  Journal,  II.,  p.  673. 

236  Ibid.,  p.  679,  Dec.  10,  1761. 

237  Assembly  Journal,  II,  681,  683.  Colden  Letter  Books ,  I,  149.  Benjamin 
Pratt  was  the  Crown  appointee  for  chief  justice. 


362 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


vided  the  judges’  salaries,  was  attached  a  condition  prevent¬ 
ing  payment  unless  the  judges  should  hold  during  good 
behavior.  This  was  done  on  the  supposition  that  Golden’s 
objection  to  the  tenure  rider  would  cause  him  to  reject  the 
whole  bill.  Instead,  Colden  actually  implored  the  Council 
to  give  its  assent  to  rider  and  all,  thus  obtaining  for  Pratt 
both  life  tenure  and  salary.  Straightway  the  Assembly  in 
its  turn  implored  the  Council  not  to  assent.  The  Council 
rejected  the  bill,  and  “thus  all  parties  were  disgusted.”  238 
This  was  the  third  and  last  unsuccessful  attempt  to  secure 
life  tenure  for  the  judges. 

The  situation  was  now  disagreeable  in  the  extreme.  Pratt 
and  all  the  justices  were  unsalaried.  The  former  returned  to 
Boston,  and  the  others  refused  to  act.  Monckton  publicly 
rebuked  Colden  for  his  stand.  To  heighten  the  dissatis¬ 
faction,  it  was  known  that  Governor  Hardy  of  New  Jersey 
had  yielded  this  very  point.  Colden  soon  after  requested 
that  the  salary  of  the  chief  justice  be  paid  from  the  quit- 
rents,  and  he  wrote  to  the  Board  of  Trade  that  the  pressure 
was  becoming  so  great  as  almost  to  justify  his  yielding. 
He  was  forbidden  to  do  so,  however,  under  pain  of  re¬ 
moval.239 

Other  troubles  were  occasioned  by  the  inaccuracy  of  land 
grant  boundaries,  which  had  long  caused  disturbance  in  the 
colony,  and  had  been  an  impediment  to  progress.  Patentees 
and  their  assignees  to  the  land  were  unwilling  to  risk  im¬ 
provements  where  boundaries  were  uncertain.  Hence,  of 
the  great  tracts  granted  prior  to  1708,  much  lay  uncultivated. 
Because  of  the  unending  delay  and  the  enormous  expense  of 
deciding  boundary  questions  in  the  courts,  the  Assembly 

238  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  367jf. 

239  Colden  Letter  Books,  I,  148-152.  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  370.  Keys,  op.  cit., 
pp.  285,  286.  Colden  could  not  but  note  that  both  Clinton  and  Delancey  had 
broken  the  very  article,  the  39th,  of  the  instructions,  which  insisted  that  judges 
hold  office  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Crown.  Clinton’s  act  had  even  received  royal 
approval.  Letter  Books,  I,  105. 


NEW  YORK 


363 


passed  a  bill  authorizing  partition  of  the  grants,  and  deter¬ 
mining  the  quit-rents.  Both  Houses  were  so  determined 
upon  this  bill  that  Colden  considered  the  rejection  of  it  to 
be  a  “load  too  heavy  for  him  to  bear  alone.”  240  Insisting, 
however,  upon  settlement  in  the  courts,  and  the  running  of 
the  lines  by  the  Surveyor-General,  he  rejected  the  bill 
on  Dec.  31,  1761.  When  asked  for  reasons,  he  declared 
his  willingness  to  approve,  provided  certain  amendments 
were  made.  After  a  four  day  adjournment  for  considera¬ 
tion  and  a  continuation  of  altercations  during  four  more, 
the  House  finally  yielded  to  most  of  Colden’s  suggestions; 
thereupon  the  bill  passed.  The  lines  were  to  be  run  by  the 
government  surveyor,  though  the  result  was  not  binding 
on  any  one,  but  intended  rather  to  supply  accurate  informa¬ 
tion  for  future  administrations.241 

Soon  after  the  close  of  this  session,  in  January,  1762,  there 
was  received  information  reflecting  discredit  on  Colden,  and 
therefore  rather  pleasing  to  the  hostile  Assembly.  It  was 
learned  from  his  own  correspondence  that  his  promotion  to 
the  lieutenant-governorship  had  come,  not  as  a  reward  of 
merit,  but  as  a  result  of  his  own  intrigue.  Colden’s  goal  in 
life  had  been  a  commission;  but  years  —  nearly  half  a 
century  —  had  passed,  and  he  was  yet  unhonored.  Ap¬ 
parently  in  the  hope  of  a  return,  he  offered  to  John  Pownal, 
who  was  clerk  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  had  the  ear  of  the 
Earl  of  Halifax,  the  agency  of  the  colony.  The  longed-for 
commission  soon  arrived.  But  trouble  came  for  Colden 
when  Pownal,  in  order  to  explain  his  own  good  intentions, 
forwarded  to  the  old  agent  all  of  Colden’s  letters,  and  the 
agent  delivered  them  to  the  Assembly.  The  members 
gloried  in  his  shame.  It  was  then  remembered  that  he  had 
once,  in  private,  suggested  the  appointment  of  a  new  agent, 

240  Colden  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  Jan.  25,  1762,  Colden  Letter  Books,  I,  155. 

241  Assembly  Journal,  II,  688.  Colden  Letter  Books,  pp.  155/.  Smith,  op.  cit., 
pp.  368/. 


364 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


though  not  by  name,  and  had  been  laughed  at  for  his  te¬ 
merity.  After  much  ado  over  the  matter,  the  Assembly  de¬ 
clared  that  no  Governor  would  be  permitted  to  interfere  in 
the  appointment  of  their  agent.242 

The  return  of  General  Monckton,  June  12,  1762,  from  the 
conquest  of  Martinique,  took  Colden  out  of  the  public 
eye  for  about  a  year.  After  approving,  without  contro¬ 
versy,  twenty-six  acts  in  the  session  that  opened  on  Nov. 
16,  1762,  Monckton,  because  of  ill  health,  returned  to 
England  on  June  28,  1763,  thus  leaving  Colden  again  in 
charge. 

For  nearly  one  and  a  half  years  there  was  compara¬ 
tive  harmony.  The  House  that  met  on  Sept.  5,  1764, 
however,  cherished  grievances  caused  by  the  late  restric¬ 
tions  on  trade  and  on  paper  money,  and  especially  by 
rumors  of  parliamentary  taxation  through  a  system  of 
stamps.  Colden’s  opening  address  was  guardedly  general, 
simply  a  congratulation  on  the  defeat  of  the  Indians  by 
Sir  William  Johnson  and  a  suggestion  of  bounty  increase 
on  hemp.  The  Assembly’s  reply  was  a  litany  of  its  griev¬ 
ances.  Although  gratified  by  the  King’s  approval  of  their 
late  conduct,  they  now  dreaded  — 

Falling  into  the  abject  state  of  being  forever  hereafter  in¬ 
capable  of  doing  what  can  merit  either  his  Distinction  or  Ap¬ 
probation.  Such  must  be  the  deplorable  State  of  that  wretched 
People,  (being  taxed  by  a  Power  subordinate  to  none,  and  in  a 
great  measure  unacquainted  with  their  Circumstances)  can  call 
Nothing  their  own. 

They  hoped  therefore  that  Colden  would  join  them  in  an 
Endeavor  to  secure  that  great  Badge  of  English  Liberty,  of  being 
taxed  only  with  our  own  consent  .  .  .  and  also  in  pointing  out 
to  the  Ministry,  the  many  Mischiefs  arising  from  the  Act,  com¬ 
monly  called,  the  Sugar  Act.  .  .  . 

242  Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  S70ff.,  390.  Colden  Letter  Books,  I,  38,  82,  84,  107.  Keys, 
op.  cit.,  p.  286. 


NEW  YORK 


365 


Colden  replied  that  the  material  parts  of  this  address 
ought  properly  to  be  made  to  the  King,  adding,  however, 
that  he  would  not  prevent  whatever  representation  of  the 
state  of  the  colony  they  might  think  best.  But  the  three 
very  powerful  addresses  which  the  Assembly  then  drew  up 
for  the  King,  Lords,  and  Commons  he  refused  to  sign,  thus 
reviving  the  old  bitterness.243 

Soon  after  this  came  the  Stamp  Act,  the  riots,  the  Stamp 
Act  Congress,  the  attack  on  the  fort  in  New  York  City, 
the  burning  in  effigy  of  the  stamp  collector  and  of  Colden 
himself,  the  destruction  of  some  of  his  property,  and  even 
rumors  that  he  was  to  be  hanged  by  the  mob.  Resentment 
against  him  still  further  increased  when,  according  to  the 
yearly  requirement  for  all  royal  Governors,  he  renewed  his 
oath  of  office.  This  oath,  with  its  promise  to  enforce  the 
laws,  meant  to  the  Assembly  and  to  the  people  the  promise 
to  enforce  the  Stamp  Act.  Lawyers  had  argued  that  because 
in  that  year  a  specific  law  for  the  renewal  had  not  been  sent 
over,  Colden  was  not  bound  by  the  oath.  But  when,  after 
waiting  in  expectation  of  the  new  Governor,  Sir  Henry  Moore, 
until  the  very  last  day  allowed  for  the  oath,244  Colden  took  it, 
indignation  was  rampant.  Immediately,  in  the  Merchant’s 
Coffee  House  and  in  other  public  places,  placards  appeared 
accusing  Colden  of  having  “bound  himself  by  an  Oath  to 
be  the  chief  Murderer  of  the  Rights  and  Privileges  of  the 
People;  .  .  .  an  Enemy  of  the  King,  his  Country  and 
Mankind.”  245 

In  November,  1764,  Colden  yielded  to  the  mob’s  demand 
that  the  stamps  be  transferred  from  royal  to  municipal 
officials.  This  done,  there  was  peace,  and  New  York  then 
began  to  develop  into  the  most  loyal  of  all  the  provinces. 

243  These  three  addresses  are  in  Assembly  Journal,  II,  769-779. 

244  The  oath  had  to  be  taken  before  the  end  of  the  last  day  in  each  October. 

245  Colden  Letter  Books,  II,  460. 


366 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Sir  Henry  Moore  arrived  on  Nov.  18,  1764,  when  Golden 
once  more  retired  to  private  life.246 

Moore  courted  the  popular  party,  avoided  Colden,  wore 
homespun,  the  badge  of  the  Sons  of  Liberty,  and  had  a 
quiet  session  with  the  Assembly  that  met  on  Nov.  12,  1765. 
The  troubles  of  the  Lieutenant-Governor,  however,  were 
not  yet  ended.  A  letter  signed  “Freedom”  and  purporting 
to  be  from  the  Sons  of  Liberty,  was  mysteriously  delivered 
to  the  Assembly.  It  demanded  that  from  Colden’s  salary, 
money  should  be  deducted  for  repairing  the  fort  and 
unspiking  the  guns  that  Colden,  during  the  riots,  had 
caused  to  be  spiked.  Although  the  letter  was  condemned  by 
the  House  as  “Libellous,  Scandalous  and  Seditious,”  Col¬ 
den  received  no  salary  at  all,  and  hostility  against  him 
deepened.247 

Further  difficulty  arose  over  the  question  of  appealing 
from  a  verdict  by  jury  to  the  Governor  and  Council.  During 
the  late  recess  Colden  had  offended  nearly  the  whole  prov¬ 
ince  by  insisting  on  the  lawfulness  of  such  appeal.  So  great 
was  the  opposition  that  the  representatives  subsequently 
embodied  this  grievance  in  their  threefold  remonstrance  to 
the  King,  Lords,  and  Commons.  Three  days  later,  in  a  set 
of  nine  resolutions,  the  House  declared  such  appeals  to  be 
illegal,  a  menace  to  the  rights,  lives,  liberty,  and  property  of 
citizens,  and  tending  to  “promote  Perjury,  prevent  Justice, 
subject  the  People  to  arbitrary  Power,  and  ruin  the  Colony.” 
Colden  was  then  mentioned  by  name  and  accused  of  aiming 
to  destroy  the  “Security.  .  .  Peace.  .  .  Repose,  and  even 
the  sense  of  civic  duty  among  the  inhabitants!  ”  248 

246  Sources  for  this  paragraph,  and  for  preceding:  Assembly  Journal ,  II, 
719,  746,  749,  752,  769-779.  Colden  Letter  Books,  I,  262-290;  II,  63,  68-78. 
Smith,  op.  cit.,  II,  375.  Keys,  op.  cit.,  pp.  296/.,  316-325.  Wilson,  op.  tit.,  II, 
328. 

247  Assembly  Journal,  II,  781,  787.  Keys,  op.  tit.,  327. 

248  Ibid.,  pp.  795,  797,  Dec.  11,  p.  806;  Dec.  14,  1765;  cf.  also  Keys,  op.  tit., 
PP*  327/. 


NEW  YORK 


367 


These  proceedings  brought  from  Colden  a  refutation,249 
which  gives  an  account  of  his  position  on  the  three  most 
troublesome  affairs  of  his  administration,  —  the  tenure  of 
judges’  commissions,  appeals  from  jury  verdicts,  and  the 
Stamp  Act  regulations. 

Following  the  Stamp  Act  riots,  the  Crown  had  ordered 
compensation  to  all  who  had  suffered  damages  in  conse¬ 
quence.  Governor  Moore,  to  whom  Colden,  in  June,  1766, 
had  presented  his  bill  for  losses,  requesting  him  to  urge 
upon  the  House  a  settlement,  refused  even  to  mention  the 
subject  until  some  three  years  later.  The  House  itself,  to 
which  Colden  had  also  presented  the  bill  of  £400  for  salary 
and  £195  for  his  burned  chariot,  refused  reimbursement  on 
the  grounds  that  he  had  brought  his  losses  upon  himself.250 

Copies  of  Colden’s  refutation,  The  Conduct  of  Cadwallader 
Colden ,  which  he  had  published  in  New  York,  came  without 
his  knowledge  to  the  colony,  and  caused  considerable  dis¬ 
turbance.  Although  every  statement  in  this  vindication 
was  probable  by  the  records,  it  was  nevertheless  pronounced 
by  a  grand  jury  to  be  a  reflection  upon  the  whole  govern¬ 
ment  and  law  of  the  province.  Even  the  Assembly,  on 
Dec.  22,  1767,  took  it  under  consideration,  and  after  violent 
censure  appointed  a  committee  to  refute  the  charges,  to 
investigate  the  authorship,  and  to  determine  penalties  cal¬ 
culated  to  deter  from  like  offenses  in  the  future.  Unable  to 
discover  the  author,  the  House  finally  arraigned  the  pam¬ 
phlet  as  highly  reflecting  44  upon  the  honor,  justice  and  dig¬ 
nity”  of  legislature  and  judiciary,  and  containing  “most 
malignant  aspersions”  upon  the  body  politic.  There  was 
even  an  insinuation  of  treason,  with  a  request  to  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  to  prosecute  44 so  great  an  offender”  whenever  he 
should  be  discovered.261 

249  The  Conduct  of  Cadwallader  Colden,  Esquire,  Late  Lieutenant-Governor  of 
New  York,  in  Colden  Letter  Books,  II,  433-467. 

260  Colden  Letter  Books,  II,  109, 110-117, 122/.,  149-153.  Keys,  op.  cit.,  pp.  332/. 

261  Assembly  Journal,  1767-1776,  Book  I,  91,  Feb.  6,  1768. 


368 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


When  a  Governor  who  is  charged  with  nothing  but  obedience 
to  King’s  instructions  and  submission  to  an  act  of  Parliament, 
cannot  defend  himself  against  the  malice  &  resentment  of  Men 
who  openly  deny  the  authority  of  parliament  and  submission  to 
the  mother  Country,  and  he  be  not  effectually  supported  and 
protected,  what  officer  of  the  Crown  will  dare  to  perform  his 
duty?  I  am  the  only  Governor  in  America  who  suffered  from 
the  frenzy  of  the  deluded  Mobs  in  1765,  and  I  am  the  only  person 
in  this  Province  to  whom  ample  reparation  has  not  been  made.252 

A  few  days  previous  to  the  close  of  the  investigation  of 
his  Conduct ,  he  also  wrote: 

A  modest  defence  of  their  Governor  in  the  performance  of  his 
duty  is  arraigned  by  the  Supreme  Court,  and  by  the  Council  & 
Assembly.  .  .  .  They  can  take  no  other  method  with  any  hope  of 
success  &  they  are  incouraged  in  it  by  the  Success  it  has  formerly 
had  even  with  a  Ministry  and  a  British  Parliament.253 

The  results  of  these  investigations,  however,  were  eventu¬ 
ally  in  Golden’s  favor,  much  to  the  chagrin  and  loss  of 
popularity  of  the  investigators. 

The  prosecution  convinced  the  people  of  the  malice  of  the 
prosecutors,  after  the  Pamphlet  had  freed  them  from  prejudices 
which  had  been  entertained  against  me  by  artfull  misrepresenta¬ 
tion  of  my  Conduct.254 

By  operation  of  the  Septennial  Act  in  1768,  a  new  Assem¬ 
bly  met  on  October  27.  The  election  showed  at  once  sur¬ 
prising  defeat  for  the  Whigs  and  considerable  reaction  in 
Golden’s  favor.  His  Conduct  was  now  eagerly  bought.255 
From  Westchester,  his  own  grandson  was  sent  to  the  Assem¬ 
bly.  The  session  itself  was  peaceful  enough  until  news 

252  Golden  to  Board  of  Trade,  Nov.  23,  1767,  Colden  Letter  Books,  II,  141. 

253  Colden  to  Lord  Mansfield,  Jan.  22,  1768,  ibid.,  p.  149. 

254  Colden  to - ,  June  16,  1768. 

265  Keys,  op.  cit.,  pp.  33 5jf. 


NEW  YORK 


369 


came  of  Parliament’s  suspension  of  all  legislatures  that  had 
countenanced  the  non-importation  agreements.  This  order 
brought  from  the  representatives  the  indignant  resolve 
that  they  possessed  “exact  equality  of  constitutional  rights” 
with  all  other  subjects  of  Great  Britain;  that  taxation 
without  their  own  consent  was  “inconsistent”  with  those 
rights;  and  that  the  authority  of  the  colony’s  “internal 
legislature”  could  not  “lawfully  or  constitutionally  be 
suspended,  abridged,  abrogated,  or  annulled  by  any  power, 
authority  or  prerogative  whatsoever  —  with  the  one  excep¬ 
tion  of  the  Crown’s  power  to  prorogue  and  dissolve.” 

Then  followed  a  declaration  of  their  right  to  “correspond 
and  consult”  with  any  colony  or  individual  they  chose, 
and  “on  any  matter,  subject  or  thing  whatsoever”  in  con¬ 
nection  with  their  welfare.  A  Committee  of  Correspondence 
was  immediately  constituted.256 

Governor  Moore  thereupon  summoned  the  members, 
declaring  his  sanguine  expectations  destroyed,  and  making 
particular  reference  to  “the  extraordinary  nature  of  certain 
resolves  .  .  .  with  an  apparent  tendency  to  give  offense.” 
Promising  in  his  reports  to  place  the  best  possible  construc¬ 
tion  on  these  proceedings,  he  declared  it  his  duty  to  dis¬ 
solve  the  Assembly.257 

The  new  election  was  exciting.  Only  six  or  seven  Whigs 
were  returned.  During  the  session  Moore  made  the  sig¬ 
nificant  suggestion  that  in  future  the  Governor  and  Coun¬ 
cil  take  part  in  appointing  the  colony  agent.  Point-blank 
the  suggestion  was  refused,  with  a  declaration  that  it  was 
“replete  with  difficulties  and  dangers”  hardly  “proper  to 
be  enumerated  in  an  address  .  .  .  sacrificing  the  rights 
and  diminishing  the  liberties  of  our  constituents.” 258 

Meanwhile,  fostered  by  the  radicals,  agitation  against 

266  Assembly  Journal,  1767-1776,  Book  II,  70ff. 

257  Ibid.,  p.  75f.  Dissolved  Jan.  2,  1769. 

258  Ibid,,  Book  III,  20,  April  8,  1769. 


370 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


England  was  on  the  increase.  The  following  statement, 
fully  six  years  before  actual  revolution,  appeared  in  a  weekly 
organ,  The  American  Whig: 

This  country  will  shortly  become  a  great  and  flourishing 
empire,  independent  of  Great  Britain;  Enjoying  its  civil  and 
religious  liberty  uncontaminated  and  deserted  of  all  control  from 
Bishops,  the  cause  of  curses,  and  from  the  subjection  of  all  earthly 
Kings;  the  corner-stone  of  this  government  is  already  laid,  the 
materials  are  preparing,  and  before  six  years  roll  about,  the 
great,  the  noble,  the  stupendous  future  will  be  erected.259 

On  Sept.  4,  1769,  Governor  Moore  died.  Colden  once 
more  took  command.  The  Council,  all  but  William  Smith, 
a  bitter  opponent  of  the  Governor,  was  conservative.  The 
Assembly  was  about  evenly  divided  in  sentiment. 

Meantime,  the  colonies  had  been  wrought  up  over  the 
various  import  taxes  and  the  quartering  act.  In  return 
for  Colden’s  approval  of  a  paper  money  bill,  the  New  York 
Assembly  consented  by  a  majority  of  one  vote  to  provide 
for  the  regulars.260  As  a  result  of  this  compliance  with  the 
quartering  act,  accusations  of  disloyalty  to  the  colony  were 
soon  insinuated  against  the  House.261  At  that  time,  in 
order  to  win  adherents  to  the  conservative  view,  Colden 
was  becoming  more  conciliatory.262 

A  new  Governor,  John,  Earl  of  Dunmore,  arrived  on 
Oct.  8,  1770.  Colden’s  retirement  on  this  occasion  was  ac¬ 
companied  by  a  series  of  congratulatory  addresses.  Dun- 
more,  after  the  unsatisfactory  outcome  of  his  contest  for 

259  Quoted  in  Keys,  op.  cit.,  p.  340. 

26°  Keys,  op.  cit.,  p.  343.  Colden’s  approval  was  urged  by  his  fears,  in  the 
event  of  refusal,  for  the  support  bill  and  his  salary.  He  knew  also  that  in 
England  the  paper  money  bill  would  be  disallowed. 

261  Cf.  pamphlet:  To  the  Betrayed  Inhabitants  of  the  City  and  Colony  of  New 
York,  supposedly  betrayed  by  the  Assembly’s  compliance.  Text  is  in  Jones, 
History  of  New  York  during  the  Revolution,  Appendix,  pp.  420jf. 

262  Keys,  op.  cit.,  pp.  342-348. 


NEW  YORK 


371 


half  of  C olden’s  salary,  decided,  when  the  opportunity 
offered  in  1771,  to  exchange  places  with  Governor  William 
Tryon  of  Virginia.263 

During  Tryon’s  two  years,  there  were  three  sessions  of 
approximately  three  months  each,  all,  even  in  those  stirring 
years  from  1772  to  1774,  passing  without  serious  conflict.264 
It  is  noteworthy  that  in  the  first  session  supplies  were 
granted  for  quartering  British  regulars.  But  the  Governor, 
not  satisfied,  declared  them  insufficient.  The  consequent 
vote  for  an  increase  resulted  in  a  tie,  which  was  decided  by 
the  speaker  in  its  favor.  Two  years  later  the  speaker  again 
decided  to  the  Governor’s  advantage  a  tie  vote  on  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  granting  him  compensation  for  the  loss  of  his  house 
by  fire.  The  Assembly  refused,  however,  to  rebuild  the 
house,  possibly  in  objection  to  reconstruction  of  this  constant 
reminder  of  royalty.265 

Governor  Tryon’s  experiences  outside  the  Assembly  were, 
owing  chiefly  to  the  tea  disturbances,  rather  unpleasant. 
The  Sons  of  Liberty  had  conducted  public  demonstrations 
against  him.  Nevertheless,  his  departure  for  England  on 
April  7,  1774,  was  accompanied  by  favorable  demonstra¬ 
tions  by  all  elements.  During  his  absence  Colden  once  more 
took  office,  this  time  to  complete  the  last  term  of  the  last 
royal  Governor  of  the  province  of  New  York.266 

Even  at  this  critical  period,  the  end  of  1774,  New  York 
was  among  the  least  radical  of  the  colonies.  In  the  session 

263  Keys,  op.  cit.,  pp.  349,  351 ff.  Colden  had  been  ordered  to  surrender  to  Dun- 
more  one  half  of  the  salary  paid  him  in  the  office  of  executive  between  the  date  of 
Dunmore’s  commission  and  his  arrival.  Sentiment  as  well  as  a  pronouncement 
of  the  Supreme  Court  was  in  favor  of  Colden,  and  Dunmore  was  glad  to  get  away. 
From  this  time  on  the  executive’s  salary  was  paid  by  the  King.  Assembly 
Journal ,  1767-1776,  V,  49. 

264  Sessions:  Jan.  7  to  March  24,  1772;  Jan.  5  to  March  8,  1773;  Jan.  6  to 
March  19,  1774.  Cf.  Assembly  Journal ,  1767-1776  under  these  dates. 

265  Assembly  Journal ,  1767-1776,  VI,  83,  88.  Wilson,  op.  cit.,  II,  423,  431. 

266  Ibid.,  pp.  428,  431. 


372 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


beginning  Jan.  10,  1775,  the  Assembly,  which  was  pre¬ 
dominantly  conservative,  made  an  address  of  loyalty  to 
Great  Britain  and  to  the  King.  In  spite  of  the  favorable 
action  taken  by  all  the  other  colonies,  it  refused  to  approve 
the  proceedings  of  the  Congress  at  Philadelphia.267  The  im¬ 
portant  business  of  the  session  regarded  relations  with  Eng¬ 
land.  But  with  both  Governor  and  House  loyal  in  senti¬ 
ment,  there  was  no  occasion  for  conflict. 

The  battle  of  Lexington  took  place  on  April  19,  1775. 
When  the  tidings  reached  New  York,  the  government  was 
seized  by  the  committee  that  had  been  deputed,  in  spite  of 
the  loyalist  Assembly,  to  attend  the  Second  Continental 
Congress.  Resolutions  were  also  adopted  declaring  emanci¬ 
pation  from  parliamentary  authority  and  union  with  the 
other  colonies.  Colden  became  a  mere  spectator.  New  York 
had  ceased  to  be  a  British  Colony.268 

Cadwallader  Colden,  like  so  many  other  royal  Governors, 
was  personally  a  man  of  admirable  qualities.  His  chief 
political  failing  was  the  rejection  of  any  consistent  plan  of 
conciliation  or  of  adaptation  to  changing  circumstances.  In 
his  opinion  diplomacy  was  not  tact,  but  weakness.  During 
the  period  previous  to  the  fall  of  Walpole,  when  the  policy 
had  been,  in  effect,  at  least,  to  let  the  colonies  work  out  their 
problems  practically  unmolested,  Colden  attempted,  in  his 
rigid  devotion  to  old  forms,  to  be  almost  more  English  than 
the  English  themselves.  His  career  in  politics  had  covered 
half  a  century.  When,  therefore,  he  came  into  power  the 
political  philosophy  of  his  training  days  had  considerably 
changed,  a  fact  that  probably  explains  the  deep  resentment 
consequent  upon  his  efforts  to  restrain  the  new  and  more 
independent  theories  of  liberty  with  the  shackles  of  an 
obsolete  tradition.  In  politics  Colden  had  little  ability. 
In  that  field  — 


267  Keys,  op.  cit.,  pp.  358jf. 


268  Keys,  op.  cit.,  pp.  361jf. 


NEW  YORK 


373 


His  sympathy,  his  plasticity,  his  humanity  even,  dropped 
from  him  and  he  became  a  martinet,  an  intolerant  theorist,  an 
implacable  stickler  for  the  letter  of  the  law,  while  tact  and  com¬ 
mon  sense  became  qualities  to  him  unknown.  From  his  stand¬ 
point,  the  freeborn  colonists  about  him,  many  of  them  of  foreign 
blood,  and  many  more  without  even  a  childish  memory  of  English 
traditions  of  class  and  rank  were  to  be  dealt  with  not  as  thinking 
human  beings,  but  rather  as  mere  animated  puppets.  ...  If 
they  rebelled  at  the  word  of  command,  force  must  be  applied. 
It  was  absurd  that  they  should  presume  even  to  argue,  and  that 
they  should  have  any  consideration,  was  preposterous.269 

Tory  that  Colden  undoubtedly  was,  there  can  hardly  be 
traced  to  his  actions  or  to  his  influence  any  part  in  occasion¬ 
ing  or  in  hastening  the  rebellion  of  1775. 


269  Keys,  op.  cit.,  pp.  3 65jf. 


CHAPTER  VI 


NEW  JERSEY 

In  1702,  when  the  Quaker  proprietors  surrendered  to  the 
Crown  their  rights  of  government  in  New  Jersey,  the  colony 
became  a  royal  province  under  the  joint  rule  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  of  New  York.  Edward  Hyde,  Lord  Cornbury,  was 
the  first  royal  Governor.  For  both  provinces  the  choice  of 
such  a  man  was  unfortunate.  His  character  has  already 
been  described  in  the  treatment  of  his  relations  with  the 
New  York  Assembly.  It  has  been  said  that  much  of  New 
Jersey’s  hostility  to  royal  Governors  is  traceable  to  the 
aversion  engendered  during  the  administration  of  the  very 
first  one,  a  “typical  black-sheep  of  an  illustrious  house.” 
In  general  the  extent  of  controversy  between  Governors 
and  Assemblies  in  New  Jersey  depended  upon  the  character 
and  ability  of  the  Governors  themselves.  Men  like  Hunter 
and  Burnet  could  rule  with  a  measure  of  smoothness,  while 
the  Cornbury  and  Cosby  type  aroused  bitter  antagonism. 
Cornbury’s  career  in  New  Jersey  as  well  as  in  New  York 
was  a  continual  struggle.1 

The  support  of  government  was  the  first  point  of  conflict. 
Cornbury  practically  inaugurated  the  struggle  himself.  His 
opening  address  at  Perth  Amboy,  in  November,  1703,  recom¬ 
mended  provision  for  proper  support.  As  the  Assembly  was 
chiefly  proprietary  in  character,  the  members  naturally 
turned  first  to  the  consideration  of  bills  that  confirmed  their 
rights  to  lands.2  This,  in  the  light  of  Cornbury’s  attitude 

1  Edwin  P.  Tanner,  The  Province  of  New  Jersey,  1361^-1738,  pp.  140/. 

2  Confirmation  of  the  proprietors  in  these  rights  was  part  of  the  Crown  agree¬ 
ment  at  the  time  of  their  surrender  of  governmental  powers.  Cornbury’s  instruc¬ 
tions  also  directed  that  laws  required  for  this  purpose  should  be  sponsored  by  him. 
Sequel  will  show  direct  violation  of  these  instructions.  Cf.  Tanner,  op.  cit., 
pp.  378/. 


NEW  JERSEY 


375 


regarding  government  support,  which  to  him  implied  emolu¬ 
ments  for  himself,  could  not  but  be  displeasing.  At  length 
the  House  did  turn  to  the  support  bill,  but  made  provision 
for  one  year  only,  granting,  in  Cornbury’s  estimation,  the 
too  meagre  sum  of  £1,000,  with  £300  for  additional  expenses. 
Interesting  developments  immediately  ensued.  The  pro¬ 
prietors,  in  order  to  insure  the  new  Governor’s  interest  on 
their  side,  had  presented  to  him  a  “gift”  of  two  hundred 
pounds.  But  when  the  proprietary  majority  in  the  House 
would  grant  no  more  than  the  support  just  mentioned,  their 
“gift”  began  to  lose  effect,  and  Cornbury’s  venal  allegiance 
swung,  in  hope  of  better  advantage,  to  the  anti-proprietary 
and  popular  party.  Circumstantial  evidence  shows  that  the 
Governor  soon  had  an  understanding  with  the  latter,  or 
“English  Proprietors.”  The  arrangement  was  that  this 
party  should  at  the  next  election  see  to  it  that  men  were 
chosen  who  would  “effectually  answer  all  the  ends  of  Gov¬ 
ernment,”  i.e .,  increase  the  support  bill  appropriation,  inci¬ 
dentally  enlarging  the  Governor’s  share  in  the  spoils.  The 
anti-proprietary  party  also  raised,  as  their  “gift”  to  Corn- 
bury,  a  subscription  amounting  to  £1,500.  This  was  done 
by  what  was  termed  a  “Blind  Tax,”  taken  chiefly  from 
among  people  in  East  Jersey  who  were  largely  opposed  to 
the  West  Jersey,  and,  in  particular,  to  the  Elizabethtown, 
Perth  Amboy  and  Quaker  group.  This  “Blind  Tax”  inci¬ 
dent  later  gave  rise  to  serious  trouble  for  Cornbury.  The 
Governor’s  price  for  all  this  was  opposition  to  the  enforce¬ 
ment  of  the  proprietor’s  rights.3 

With  these  points  in  mind,  proceedings  between  Governor 
and  Assembly  can  be  better  understood.  At  the  end  of  its 
first  session  he  had  refused  to  approve  any  of  the  bills  passed 
in  favor  of  the  proprietors,  and  angrily  prorogued  the  legis¬ 
lature  until  the  following  September.4 

3  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  172,  379,  504. 

4  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  171,  379,  380,  381,  502. 


376 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


At  the  next  session  Cornbury  again  urged  sufficient  sup¬ 
port  for  the  government,  and  also  promised  confirmation  of 
the  proprietary  rights.  His  late  rejection  of  these  was  ex¬ 
plained  by  a  declaration  that  the  bills  prepared  in  this  re¬ 
gard  were  inadequate  to  the  purpose.  The  House  soon  drew 
up  new  bills,  similar  to  the  first,  except  that  there  were 
separate  measures  for  East  Jersey  and  West  Jersey.  Action 
on  the  support  bill,  however,  was  slow.  Apparently  the 
proprietors  were  making  its  fate  depend  upon  the  outcome 
of  their  own  bills.  Cornbury  fretted  under  the  delay;  and 
because  he  had  to  attend,  at  the  beginning  of  the  following 
month,  the  opening  of  the  New  York  Assembly,  he  became 
more  and  more  incensed.  Finally  the  new  revenue  bill 
passed,  granting  £1,500  for  one  year,  and  £1,000  yearly  for 
the  next  two.  Cornbury  angrily  expressed  his  disappoint¬ 
ment,  dissolved  the  Assembly,  and  declared  that  they  had 
failed  both  Queen  and  country.  That  they  had  failed  him, 
however,  he  did  not  say  in  so  many  words;  but  he  at  once 
abandoned  the  proprietary  party,  and  went  over  to  the  anti¬ 
proprietary,  the  then  popular  side.  All  this  implies  direct 
and  flagrant  violation  of  his  instructions,  which  commanded 
him  both  to  keep  aloof  from  parties  and  to  secure  confirma¬ 
tion  of  the  proprietary  claims.  With  Cornbury,  however, 
duty  and  other  interests  were  always  correlated  with  self- 
interest,  usually  on  a  pecuniary  bias.  His  next  step  was  sus¬ 
pension,  removal,  or  enforced  resignation  of  proprietary 
leaders  and  of  their  supporters  who  were  office  holders.  The 
greatest  effect  of  these  sudden  shif tings  was  felt  in  the  courts 
of  justice,  of  which  many  ceased  to  deserve  the  name. 

A  new  election,  however,  though  it  had  been  tampered 
with,  gave  the  proprietors  a  majority  of  two  in  the  House. 
Cornbury’s  party  immediately  proceeded  to  remedy  this 
difficulty  and  for  a  time  succeeded,  by  disputing  the  election 
of  three  of  the  proprietary  members.  Pending  a  decision, 
the  three  members  were  excluded.  Cornbury  then  prorogued 


NEW  JERSEY 


377 


the  session  in  time  to  prevent  a  judgment,  thus  giving  his 
party  a  majority  of  one.  This  was  a  case  of  barefaced  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  rights  of  representation,  and  at  a  later  period 
became  a  source  of  serious  trouble.5 

The  prorogation  lasted  from  Dec.  12,  1704,  to  May, 
1705.  In  the  House,  during  the  intervening  five  months, 
hostility  to  Cornbury  had  apparently  increased,  for  when 
the  May  session  was  to  open  in  Burlington,  the  West  Jersey 
(proprietary)  members  did  not  appear,  with  the  exception  of 
the  residents  of  Burlington  itself.  This  turn  of  affairs  caused 
much  uneasiness.  Finally  the  East  Jersey,  or  anti-proprie¬ 
tary  members,  who  had  already  arrived,  received  Cornbury’s 
consent  to  their  petition  to  return  home. 

The  next  meeting  was  held  seven  months  later,  in  Decem¬ 
ber,  1705.  On  that  occasion  the  West  Jersey  members 
came,  though  very  late.  Immediately  the  question  of  the 
three  virtually  excluded  members  was  introduced.  Because 
a  majority  in  the  House  was  then  opposed  to  the  Governor, 
a  vote  to  admit  them  was  easily  passed;  therefore,  after 
some  further  altercation,  they  were  finally  admitted.6 

Thus  the  proprietary  party  was  again  in  control,  though 
not  in  sufficient  time  to  prevent  the  support  bill  passed  by 
the  opposing  pro-Cornbury  party  in  the  early  part  of  the 
session.  That  measure  had  increased  the  revenue  from 
£1,500  to  £2,000,  granting  it  for  two  years.  The  heaviest  v 
burden  in  raising  this  money  was  arranged  to  fall  upon 
the  proprietors.  Later  the  bill  was  disallowed  by  the  home 
government,  which  determined  that  the  previous  grant  of 
£1,500  for  first  year  and  £1,000  for  succeeding  ones  was 
ample.  It  directed,  also,  that  the  grant  be  extended  to  a 
twenty-one  year  period.  The  next  Assembly  was  informed 

5  Cf.  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  173-176,  381 ff,  502. 

6  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  383 ff.  Cornbury,  in  his  report  to  the  Board  of  Trade, 
Feb.  17,  1705,  made  no  mention  of  this  disgraceful  affair.  The  home  officials 
learned  of  it  from  other  sources;  the  Governor  was  advised  not  to  meddle  in  such 
matters. 


378 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


of  all  this  by  Lord  Cornbury,  but  refused  to  grant  him 
another  penny.7 

This  victory  of  the  Assembly  regarding  the  three  members 
made  Cornbury’s  position  even  less  enviable.  Respect  for 
his  authority  was  gone.  Sarcastically  they  replied  to  his 
opening  address  in  the  next  session,  October,  1705,  by 
thanking  him  for  “permitting  them  opportunity  to  prepare 
laws;”  and  immediately  Cornbury’s  Nemesis  again  ap¬ 
peared,  i.e.,  the  bills  confirming  proprietary  rights.  On  the 
government  charges  incurred  previous  to  the  settlement  of 
the  revenue,  and  now  recommended  by  the  Governor,  no 
action  was  taken,  apparently  pending  the  fate  of  the  pro¬ 
prietary  measures.  Perceiving  no  hope  of  harmony,  Corn¬ 
bury,  with  another  vehement  denunciation,  adjourned  the 
Assembly  until  the  following  spring. 

It  was  a  year  later,  however,  in  October,  1706,  at  Amboy, 
before  they  convened.  For  nearly  a  month  no  quorum 
appeared.  Cornbury,  in  disgust,  adjourned  the  House  from 
day  to  day  and  finally  prorogued  them  until  the  following 
spring,  dissolving  them  soon  after. 

The  dissolution,  however,  brought  no  remedy  for  the 
Governor’s  troubles,  for  the  new  election  resulted  in  a  ma¬ 
jority  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  the  proprietary  party. 
Lewis  Morris,  leader  of  the  proprietary  interests,  was  a  mem¬ 
ber;  and  Jennings,  the  West  Jersey  Quaker,  whom  Cornbury 
had  recently  forced  to  resign  from  the  Council,  was  chosen 
speaker,  —  events  which  did  not  augur  well  for  harmony.8 

But  Cornbury’s  opening  address  was  amiable  enough.  He 
recommended  provision  for  the  expired  government  support, 
and  he  announced  also  the  instructions  above  referred  to, 
permitting  acceptance  of  £1,500  instead  of  £2,000,  but  by 
a  grant  covering  a  period  of  twenty-one  years.  He  also  went 
through  the  form  of  recommending  a  bill  for  confirmation 
of  the  proprietors’  and  inhabitants’  land  claims. 

7  Tanner,  op.  cil.,  pp.  285,  386,  503,  504. 


8  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  387 ff. 


NEW  JERSEY 


379 


The  House,  on  its  part,  immediately  advanced  to  the 
attack  by  appointing  a  committee  of  grievances.  They  then 
declared  their  right  to  name  their  own  clerk,  instead  of  ac¬ 
cepting  the  present  one,  a  partisan  of  Cornbury.  The 
Governor  met  this  attack  by  interfering  with  the  proposed 
new  appointment,  and  accusing  the  House  of  unprecedented 
irregularities.  Thus  to  appoint  a  member  to  the  position 
would  be  to  deprive  him  of  the  privilege  of  debate  and 
suffrage.  Nevertheless,  the  House  after  consideration 
ordered  the  Governor’s  appointee  to  withdraw,  who,  ap¬ 
pealing  to  his  oath,  refused.  Morris  then  reported  him  as 
having  declared  that  he  was  sworn  to  discover  in  the  House 
debates  that  were  dangerous  to  the  government.  This  was 
deemed  a  misdemeanor  and  a  scandalous  reflection  upon 
the  House;  and  Cornbury  was  requested  to  remove  his 
clerk,  which  he  finally  did,  but  appointed  another  in  his 
stead.  This  strategy  rather  disappointed  the  Assembly’s 
desire  for  their  own  clerk,  and,  on  the  ground  that  every 
committee  was  entitled  to  its  clerk,  they  formed  a  committee 
of  the  whole,  and  chose  a  clerk  of  the  House  acting  in  that 
capacity.  Thus  was  scored  another  victory. 

Thus  far  troubles  with  Governor  Cornbury  had  been 
chiefly  negative,  that  is,  by  way  of  disagreement  with  his 
favorite  measures.  The  House  now  adopted  a  policy  of 
aggression.  Investigation  of  the  “Blind  Tax”  was  begun. 
This  inquiry  amounted  to  a  virtual  arraignment  of  the  chief 
executive,  a  step  rather  daring  in  itself,  but  not  in  the  cir¬ 
cumstances,  for  Cornbury ’s  power  both  in  the  colony  and 
at  home  was  declining.  One  of  the  most  prominent  of  the 
tax  collectors,  who  was  also  a  member  of  the  House,  was  the 
first  attacked,  and  a  committee  appointed  to  examine  the 
amount  of  money  collected  by  him.  The  collector  refused 
to  take  oath,  was  voted  in  contempt,  and  given  in  custody 
to  the  sergeant-at-arms,  an  official  acquired  just  previous 


380 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


to  the  investigation  and  by  special  request  of  the  Governor. 
The  collector  was  later  expelled  from  the  House.9 

Other  grievances  against  Cornbury  were  also  considered. 
Altogether,  the  case  against  him  was  deemed  sufficient  to 
warrant  an  address  to  the  Queen,  in  which  were  men¬ 
tioned  the  “ Blind  Tax”  episode  and  the  exclusion  of  three 
members  from  the  House. 

On  May  8,  1707,  the  Assembly  sent  to  the  Governor 
himself  a  remonstrance,  a  document  which  historians  have 
declared  to  be  in  many  respects  remarkable.  The  follow¬ 
ing  grievances  were  mentioned:  Too  great  attention  by  the 
executive  to  New  York  affairs,  to  the  detriment  of  New 
Jersey  interests;  interference  with  judicial  decisions;  the 
demand  of  fees  from  innocent  persons  in  spite  of  acquittal; 
the  existence  of  only  one  office  in  the  province  for  the  pro¬ 
bate  of  wills;  the  Governor’s  grant  of  a  trade  monopoly 
on  the  road  from  Amboy  to  Burlington,  and  the  direct 
violation  of  Magna  Charta  by  arbitrary  establishment  of 
fees;  interference  with  the  rights  of  proprietors  and  in¬ 
habitants;  the  exclusion  of  the  three  members,  and  the 
“Blind  Tax.” 

Practically  all  these  abuses  were  of  the  kind  readily 
associated  with  receipt  of  “graft.”  Considering  Cornbury ’s 
greed  and  his  need  of  money,  a  de  facto  association  may  be 
almost  safely  inferred. 

The  Governor  made  a  lengthy  reply  to  the  remonstrance. 
For  justification  on  many  of  the  heads,  he  appealed  to  his 
instructions  and  to  the  powers  of  his  office.  Complicity  in 
the  “Blind  Tax”  he  absolutely  denied;  and  he  aimed  a 
counter-attack  against  the  House,  by  emphasizing  the 
irregularity  of  their  procedure,  and  in  general  their  failure 
to  serve  Queen  and  country.10 

Meanwhile,  pending  remedy  for  its  own  grievances,  the 
House  had  continually  ignored  the  Governor’s  recommenda- 


9  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  p.  390. 


10  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  391jf. 


NEW  JERSEY 


381 


tion  for  legislation.  In  May,  1707,  support  for  the  govern¬ 
ment  was  again  refused.  In  fact,  from  the  trend  of  proceed¬ 
ings  the  House  seemed  delighted  with  an  excuse  to  do  so. 
On  May  first  there  had  been  requested  from  the  Council 
the  accounts  of  the  receiver-general  covering  the  preceding 
two  years.  Lacking  a  quorum,  the  Council  took  no  action. 
The  House  therefore  refused  to  consider  any  measure  for 
support.  This  attitude  immediately  brought  forth  the 
desired  accounts.  The  Assembly  then  asked  to  inspect  the 
vouchers  of  the  receiver-general,  which  the  latter,  without 
the  Governor’s  consent,  could  not  allow;  and  without  per¬ 
mit  Cornbury  was  himself  unwilling  to  consent,  declaring 
that  in  submitting  the  accounts  he  had  already  done  more 
than  was  usual.  The  members  then  turned  to  a  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  old  bills  that  were  so  obnoxious  to  the  Governor, 
i.e.,  in  connection  with  confirmation  of  the  proprietors’ 
claims  and  with  determining  fees  of  the  representatives  and 
the  qualifications  of  jurymen.  Prorogation  until  October 
soon  followed. 

When  the  next  session  opened,  it  must  have  convinced 
Governor  Cornbury  of  the  hopelessness  of  expecting  any 
co-operation  from  the  Assembly.  The  latter  resolved  to 
refuse  support  until  grievances  were  redressed,  making  the 
salary  grant  of  £1,500  for  one  year  only,  and  not,  as  Corn- 
bury’s  instructions  directed,  for  twenty-one  years. 

In  the  mean  time  the  Assembly  had  prepared  a  reply  to 
the  Governor’s  answer  to  their  remonstrance.  Upon  being 
asked  when  he  would  be  ready  to  receive  it,  he  practically 
refused  to  receive  it  at  all.  It  was  entered,  however,  on  the 
Journal  and  was  a  popular  manifesto,  rather  than  a  docu¬ 
ment  addressed  to  the  Governor. 

Another  wave  of  trouble  came  when  the  House,  desiring 
to  revise  the  laws  of  the  province,  was  refused  copies  of  the 
same,  pending  the  Governor’s  consent  to  deliver  them. 
Then,  perhaps  ironically,  it  turned  to  the  consideration 


382 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


of  a  publication  entitled  Forget  and  Forgive.  Cornbury 
ended  the  session  before  further  action  on  the  laws  could  be 
taken.11 

Affairs  had  come  to  such  a  pass  that  during  the  recess 
both  parties  sent  to  the  Queen  addresses  of  complaint. 

After  the  next  meeting,  on  May  5,  1708,  the  deadlock 
continued.  Again  the  opening  address  urged  provision 
for  support  of  the  government  during  twenty-one  years, 
also  a  revival  of  an  old  unpopular  militia  act.  The  As¬ 
sembly’s  reply  was  simply  a  reminder  that  their  grievances 
were  still  unredressed.  In  the  mean  time,  moreover,  new 
grievances  had  arisen  to  increase  the  hostility  and  strengthen 
the  deadlock.  Judicial  prosecutions  and  convictions  were 
being  made  upon  informations  alone,  a  process  which  made 
a  mockery  of  the  old  constitutional  grand  jury  tradition,  and 
incidentally  enriched  the  attorney-general  at  the  expense  of 
the  country.  What  juries  and  witnesses  there  were,  had 
to  be  brought  over  great  distances  to  Burlington  and  Am¬ 
boy.  This  also  was  a  cause  of  inconvenience,  of  expense, 
and  of  dissatisfaction.  Lawyers  inclined  to  defend  persons 
accused  on  information  feared  suspension  for  so  doing. 

As  a  consequence,  the  House  remained  firm  in  its  resolu¬ 
tion  to  provide  no  support  until  grievances  were  redressed. 
Again  it  refused  to  make  the  salary  grant  for  a  period  of 
twenty-one  years  or  to  revive  the  old  militia  act,  prom¬ 
ising,  however,  that  in  case  of  necessity  defense  would  be 
arranged. 

In  a  word,  the  House  would  grant  nothing  except  upon 
its  own  terms.  Cornbury  therefore  prorogued  them.  Before 
the  next  session  he  had  been  removed  from  office.12 

The  experience  of  New  Jersey  with  its  first  royal  Governor 
was  unfortunate.  It  developed  an  attitude  of  hostility  to 
royal  appointees,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  trouble  for  his 

11  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  394jf. 

12  Session  was  prorogued  until  September,  1708.  Cf.  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  p.  396/f. 


NEW  JERSEY 


383 


successors.  The  people  felt,  not  only  that  nothing  was  to  be 
gained  from  the  Governor,  but  that  unless  extreme  vigilance 
were  exercised  in  protecting  their  rights,  there  was  much  to 
be  lost.  Consequently  relations  in  New  Jersey  between 
Governor  and  House  came  to  depend  largely  upon  the  per¬ 
sonality  and  policy  of  that  official  himself.  Lord  Cornbury 
had  planted  deeply  the  seeds  of  distrust. 

When  the  new  Governor,  “the  good  Lord  Lovelace,” 
arrived,  the  House  expressed  to  the  Queen  its  opinion  of 
Cornbury,  by  thanking  her  for  “putting  an  end  to  the  worst 
administration  New  Jersey  ever  knew.” 

Lovelace  had  a  short  but  harmonious  rule  of  one  year. 
Bills  refused  under  Cornbury  were  quickly  passed,  providing* 
an  increased  appropriation  for  support  of  the  government, 
and  reviving,  though  with  penalties  less  severe,  the  old 
militia  act.13 

The  first  two  Governors  of  New  Jersey  were  noblemen. 
The  third  was  not.  Perhaps  in  the  interval  preceding  the 
third  appointment,  the  ministry  had  become  persuaded, 
through  Cornbury’s  reports,  that  the  governorship  was  a', 
post  not  so  enviable  or  lucrative  as  might  have  been  expected. 

On  the  death  of  Lovelace,  Lieutenant-Governor  In- 
goldsby  took  command.  From  the  very  first  there  was 
evident  distrust  of  him  in  the  House,  and  he  met  opposition 
almost  as  violent  as  that  against  Cornbury.  Even  his  right 
to  govern  was  questioned,  and  a  copy  of  his  commission 
demanded.  His  own  policy,  also,  was  to  frustrate  the  meas¬ 
ures  favored  by  the  House.  He  worked,  however,  chiefly 
through  the  Council,  which  was  anti-proprietary  and  pro- 
Cornbury  in  tone.  As  a  result,  the  continual  controversy 
that  marked  his  administration  was  usually  between  the 
Upper  and  the  Lower  House. 

Ingoldsby’s  most  important  direct  conflict  with  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  arose  in  connection  with  the  colony’s  quota  for 

13  Quoted  by  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  398,  399. 


384 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


the  expedition  against  Canada.  In  the  circumstances,  he 
had  an  advantage  over  the  House,  in  that  he  could  stigma¬ 
tize  any  opposition  as  lack  of  patriotism.  The  trouble  began 
when  the  House,  in  consideration  of  the  Quaker  element  in 
the  colony,  determined  to  raise  the  quota  of  200  men  by 
Voluntary  enlistment.  To  this,  Ingoldsby,  who  was  ever 
hostile  to  the  Quakers,  strongly  objected,  later  using  it  in 
his  intrigues  to  have  the  Quakers  removed  from  all  offices. 
But  the  House  refused  to  pass  the  bill  except  on  its  own 

t, 

conditions,  and  the  quota  was  thus  finally  completed. 
Before  the  arrival  of  the  next  Governor,  Robert  Hunter, 
Ingoldsby  had  left  the  province. 

The  new  Governor  undoubtedly  ranked  among  the  best 
of  all  royal  appointees,  and  has  been  classed  as  the  ablest 
statesman  in  the  executive  history  of  New  Jersey.  With 
the  House  in  so  hostile  an  attitude,  the  choice  of  Robert 
Hunter  was  fortunate.  In  his  term  of  over  ten  years,  1709- 
1721,  he  practically  succeeded  in  avoiding  all  controversy. 
The  distasteful  role  usually  taken  by  the  unpopular  Gov¬ 
ernor  was  in  Hunter’s  time  played  by  the  Council.  Between 
that  body  and  the  Assembly  there  was  continual  conflict.14 
With  the  Governor,  however,  there  was  extraordinary  and 
almost  continuous  harmony  and  even  sympathy.  Only 
once  did  controversy  threaten,  when  in  1716  the  opposing 
party  managed  to  secure  a  majority  in  the  House.  Hunter’s 
shrewdness,  however,  in  the  end  prevailed.  By  well-timed 
prorogations  he  prevented  development  of  open  conflict; 
and  on  May  14,  1716,  the  day  appointed  for  meeting,  when 
the  opposition  thought  to  thwart  him  by  not  appearing,  he 
managed  to  gather  a  quorum  containing  a  majority  of  his 
own  party  and  caused  the  election  of  a  new  speaker.  Thus 
the  House  was  once  more  in  harmony,  and  Hunter  kept  it 

14  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  142#“.,  401#“.,  gives  character  sketch  and  some  out¬ 
line  of  important  incidents  in  Ingoldsby’s  administration.  See  pp.  405-409, 
412. 


NEW  JERSEY 


385 


in  existence  during  the  remaining  five  years  of  his  admin¬ 
istration. 

In  the  many  disputes  between  House  and  Council,  the 
new  Governor  managed  to  keep  in  the  background.  The 
support  bill  in  his  time  was  regularly  passed  and  with  no 
serious  delays.  His  work  speaks  for  itself.  Departments 
which  he  had  found  in  bitter  conflict,  he  left  co-operating  to 
good  purpose.  If  his  policy  of  conciliation  was  too  pro¬ 
nounced  —  at  the  expense  of  some  of  his  authority  —  and 
the  means  he  employed  against  some  of  his  opponents  were 
not  too  scrupulous,  nevertheless,  he  obtained  from  the 
House  more  than  almost  any  other  Governor,  and  did 
service  to  England  and  to  all  royal  Governors  by  breaking 
down  the  ill  repute  which  had  begun  to  gather  about  them.15 
He  was  succeeded  by  William  Burnet,  1721-1728. 

The  first  year  or  so  of  Governor  Burnet’s  term  was  par¬ 
ticularly  stormy;  the  remainder,  comparatively  calm.  Con¬ 
flict  came  in  his  very  first  relations  with  the  Assembly, 
when,  following  Hunter’s  example,  he  desired  to  continue 
the  same  body  still  longer  in  existence.  The  prevailing 
opinion,  however,  maintained  that  the  appointment  of  a 
new  Governor  connoted  a  new  election.  Burnet’s  action 
was  later  approved  by  the  Board  of  Trade;  but  the  members, 
though  they  convened  at  Burlington,  refused  to  regard 
themselves  as  a  legal  body.  The  Governor  interpreted 
this  attitude  as  a  ruse  to  defeat  his  administration.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  Professor  Tanner,  the  real  cause  of  the  trouble 
lay  in  the  fact  that  Burnet  had  antagonized  many  of  the 
powerful  proprietary  interests.  The  Assembly  had  become 
accustomed  to  the  careful,  conciliatory  policy  of  Hunter, 
while  Burnet’s  positive  stand  could  not  fail  to  arouse 
opposition.16 

15  Tanner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  423jf.,  433 ff. 

16  Later  on,  after  inspecting  the  letter  from  the  Board  of  Trade,  they  did  acknowl¬ 
edge  the  Governor’s  right  and  the  legality  of  the  continued  Assembly.  Ibid.,  p.  439. 


386 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


The  Assembly  met,  however,  in  Feb.  28,  1721.  Burnet 
in  his  formal  opening  address  hoped  that  this  final  meeting 
denoted  a  change  for  the  better  in  the  former  undutiful 
and  hostile  attitude.  He  made  also  a  plea  for  harmony, 
mentioning  the  favorable  reports  of  Hunter.  The  need 
of  a  more  liberal  support  bill  was  next  referred  to,  and 
for  a  period  became  the  bone  of  contention.  By  his 
irritating  procedure  of  adjourning  the  Assembly  from  day 
to  day  for  twenty  days,  Burnet  increased  the  opposition. 
His  motive  was  to  compel  the  House  to  reflect  upon  its 
unruly  conduct.  Finally,  when  business  began,  the  support 
bill  was  drawn  up  for  two  years  only,  while  an  increase  in 
the  amount  was  refused.  Burnet,  however,  declined  to 
approve,  because  his  instructions  called  for  a  grant  covering 
an  unlimited  period.  A  five-year  grant  was  the  smallest 
he  could  accept.  The  Council  therefore  so  amended  the 
bill,  but  the  House  protested;  and  following  the  general 
colonial  tradition,  it  not  only  rejected  the  amendment,  but 
repudiated  the  Council’s  right  even  to  attempt  an  amend¬ 
ment  on  a  money  bill.  The  Governor  stormed;  the  gov¬ 
ernment  was  left  without  support. 

There  was  also  a  controversy  regarding  the  qualifications 
of  members  and  the  form  of  swearing  in  new  ones.  The 
provincial  acts  prescribed  as  a  property  qualification  £500 
proclamation  money;  Burnet’s  instructions  prescribed  £500 
sterling.  On  this  ground  the  Governor  declared  the  provin¬ 
cial  acts  void.  The  Assembly,  however,  maintained  that 
only  disallowance  by  the  King  could  nullify  the  provincial 
acts.  Burnet  made  a  fiery  speech  on  the  subject,  but  the 
situation  remained  eventually  unchanged.  Regarding  the 
swearing  in  of  two  members,  newly  elected  to  replace  two 
who  had  lacked  proper  qualifications,  there  was  also  dis- 

The  Amboy  group  had  sought  against  the  East  Jersey  group  an  act  so  incor¬ 
porating  the  latter  as  to  place  the  real  power  in  the  hands  of  the  former.  Burnet 
refused  to  co-operate.  Tanner,  p.  435. 


NEW  JERSEY 


387 


agreement.  The  House  desired  Burnet  to  send  down  the 
clerk  with  the  usual  oaths,  so  that  the  new  members  might 
be  sworn;  but  the  Governor  believed  that  the  original  two 
had  been  dismissed  chiefly  because  of  a  too  favorable  atti¬ 
tude  toward  himself.  Therefore  he  insisted  upon  the  old 
practice  of  always  swearing  in  new  members  before  the 
Governor.  Although  the  House  immediately  cited  numerous 
exceptions,  Burnet  held  his  ground.  The  records  do  not 
show  that  either  side  obtained  any  satisfaction  in  this 
controversy. 

Military  concerns  also  caused  difficulty.  The  House 
declined  in  this  regard  to  follow  the  Governor’s  instructions. 
In  this  first  session  the  source  of  much  of  Burnet’s  difficulty 
was  his  lack  of  tact.  On  many  occasions  his  remarks  were 
made  personally  to  certain  of  the  members.  His  com¬ 
munications  were  scoldings  rather  than  addresses,  while  his 
obvious  assumption  of  superior  knowledge  and  experience 
could  not  but  arouse  antagonism.  This  was  aggravated  by 
his  attempt  to  class  the  representatives  in  the  category  of 
men  who  meant  well  enough,  but  who  were  deceived  by 
clever  rascals  of  the  type  that  led  the  opposition.17  This 
pseudo-charitable  attitude  later  developed  into  one  of 
positive  accusation,  causing  deep  resentment  in  the  House. 
In  a  set  of  resolutions  prepared  early  in  the  session,  the 
members  denied  that  they  had  been  so  misled,  and  declared 
that  their  immediate  provision  for  support  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  was  a  vindication  of  Hunter’s  good  reports.  Later  on 
they  complained  directly  of  the  Governor’s  abuse  of  power 
in  adjourning  the  House  for  twenty  consecutive  days,  thus 
greatly  increasing  also  the  financial  burden  of  the  province. 
By  the  controversy  over  the  qualification  of  members  they 
seemed  particularly  aroused,  and  stated  that  even  Corn- 
bury,  bad  though  he  was,  had  never  attempted  interference 
in  such  matters.  They  took  occasion  also  to  retort  with  the 


17  Tanner,  pp.  437/T. 


388 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Governor’s  charitable  excuse  about  their  good  intentions 
being  thwarted  by  designing  men. 

On  May  26,  1721,  this  Assembly  was  dissolved.  Strange 
to  say,  Burnet  had  practically  no  more  difficulties  during 
the  remaining  seven  years  of  his  administration.  Apparently 
he  had  profited  by  the  experience  of  the  first  session,  and 
thereafter  appeared  less  dictatorial  and  more  concerned  for 
the  interest  of  the  colony.  The  five-year  support  bill  that  had 
been  refused  in  the  first  session  was  conceded  in  the  next, 
and  the  usual  amount  was  increased  by  £1,000  per  annum, 
to  be  granted  for  a  period  of  ten  years.  This  unprecedented 
liberality  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  according  to  the 
instruction,  bills  of  credit  could  be  issued  only  in  acts  for 
support. 

In  May,  1725,  when  the  original  act  of  support  was  about 
to  expire,  a  new  five-year  appropriation  was  made.  Thus 
all  important  matters  Tvent  smoothly  along.  The  occasional 
ripples  are  scarcely  worth  noting.18 

Governor  Burnet’s  administration  of  eight  years  ended  in 
1728  by  his  transfer  to  the  government  of  Massachusetts. 
By  that  time,  except  for  Burnet’s  first  year,  there  had  been, 
i^  Governor  Hunter’s  term  be  counted  in,  nearly  twenty 
years  of  practically  continuous  harmony  between  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  and  the  Assembly  of  New  Jersey.  On  the  other  hand, 
as  in  Massachusetts,  the  seeds  of  discontent  had  already 
taken  root.  The  salary  question  had  early  been  settled; 
other  matters  gave  but  little  difficulty.  Perhaps  one  reason 
for  the  harmony  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  Governor  had  to 
give  most  of  his  time  and  attention  to  the  larger  province 
of  New  York,  which  he  also  ruled,  and  which,  as  has  been 
seen,  kept  him  fairly  busy. 

The  next  three  years  also,  under  Governor  John  Mont¬ 
gomerie,  were  generally  peaceful.  By  that  time  the  question 
of  separation  from  New  York  was  being  much  agitated  and 

18  Tanner,  pp.  439-448. 


NEW  JERSEY 


389 


formed  the  chief  matter  of  dispute  between  Montgomerie 
and  the  House.  Until  the  will  of  the  Crown  could  be  known, 
he  refused  to  co-operate  in  any  way  toward  effecting  the 
separation.  The  House  in  turn  refused  to  pass  the  usual 
support  bill,  granting  it  for  a  period  of  only  three  years, 
instead  of  five. 

In  other  matters,  especially  financial,  Montgomerie  was  , 
so  compliant  as  even  to  risk  rebuke  from  the  ministry. 
By  a  later  Assembly  a  five-year  support  bill  was  granted. 
The  Governor’s  scruples  regarding  the  measure  for  separa¬ 
tion  were  allayed  by  advice  from  the  Lords  of  Trade  that 
they  saw  no  reason  binding  him  to  interfere  with  properly 
made  petitions  for  a  separate  government.  Governor  Mont¬ 
gomerie  died  in  July,  1731,  and  was  succeeded  by  William 
Cosby.19 

The  new  Governor  held  office  during  five  years.  With 
his  New  York  Assembly  he  experienced  continual  and  seri¬ 
ous  conflict.  In  New  Jersey,  however,  there  was  no  trouble, 
chiefly  because  in  that  province  he  held  but  one  legislative 
session,  at  which  he  gave  no  occasion  for  conflict. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  ever  since  the  troublesome  ad¬ 
ministration  of  the  first  Governor,  Lord  Cornbury,  there 
had  been  little  friction  between  the  New  Jersey  executive 
and  the  lower  House.  Aside  from  Cosby’s  case,  this  was 
due  in  great  measure  to  the  character  and  abilities  of  the  * 
Governors  themselves.  Undoubtedly,  also,  the  extraordi¬ 
nary  absence  of  friction  was  due  to  lack  of  contact  with  the 
House.  Governors  were  chiefly  occupied  in  the  complex 
affairs  of  the  larger  province.  This  is  particularly  true  of 
Governor  Cosby,  who,  because  of  his  miserable  conduct  of 
affairs  in  New  York  and  of  the  ill  feeling  against  him  both 
there  and  in  New  Jersey,  could  scarcely  have  escaped  trouble, 
had  not  his  contact  with  the  Assembly  been  confined  to  a 
single  session. 


19  Tanner,  pp.  147,  449-451,  51 3ff. 


390 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


With  the  end  of  Governor  Cosby’s  administration,  there 
closes  an  era  in  the  history  of  colonial  New  Jersey,  a  history 
interesting  by  reason  of  the  successive  stages  through  which 
it  passed.  In  1702  the  proprietary  interests  in  East  and  in 
West  Jersey  ceded  their  right  to  govern,  and  the  districts 
were  fused  into  one  royal  province  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  New  York  Governor  but  distinct  in  all  other  respects. 
This  union  with  New  York  caused  much  dissatisfaction. 
The  distant  Governor,  occupied  to  his  full  capacity  with 
affairs  in  the  larger  province,  could  not  but  neglect  public 
business  in  New  Jersey.  Agitation,  therefore,  for  a  separate 
Governor  was  soon  on  foot  and  bore  fruit  in  1738  in  the 
appointment  of  Lewis  Morris.  A  vestige  of  the  dual  Jersey 
remained  in  the  custom  of  convening  the  Assembly  alter¬ 
nately  at  the  old  centers  of  government,  Burlington  and 
Perth  Amboy. 

The  two  years  previous  to  the  new  appointment  were 
spent  by  the  public  men  chiefly  in  the  effort  to  procure  a 
separate  Governor.  The  latter’s  commission  was  prac¬ 
tically  the  same  as  that  of  the  New  York  executives.  Hence, 
as  in  New  York  and  in  the  other  royal  colonies,  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  had  his  prerogative  to  maintain  and  his  instructions 
to  enforce;  while  the  Assembly  had  its  own  ground  to  hold, 
and,  whenever  possible,  to  expand. 

Among  the  many  disputes  that  occurred  between  Gov¬ 
ernor  and  representatives  up  to  this  period,  two  stand  out 
as  constituting  the  chief  and  most  enduring  points  of  con¬ 
troversy,  namely,  support  of  the  government  and  con¬ 
firmation  of  the  proprietors’  rights.  In  practically  all  of 
these  contentions,  victory  was  with  the  House.  Already 
in  New  Jersey  the  trend  of  political  development  tended  to 
make  the  Governor  the  executive  of,  rather  than  the  master 
of,  the  wishes  of  the  Assembly.20 

The  first  session  under  Governor  Lewis  Morris  holds  for 


20  Tanner,  pp.  4 55 ff. 


NEW  JERSEY 


391 


two  reasons  a  place  of  unusual  prominence  and  importance. 
It  had  been  nearly  five  years  since  the  last  meeting  under 
Governor  Cosby  in  1733,  and  this  session  was  the  first  to 
be  presided  over  by  the  long-sought  separate  Governor. 

Almost  immediately,  however,  there  was  trouble.  The 
new  Governor  had  been  largely  instrumental  in  procuring 
the  boon  of  a  separate  executive,  but  the  Assembly  resolved 
to  grant  him  no  reward.  In  the  resolution  to  this  effect, 
Morris  saw  insinuations  of  his  venality.  His  address  de¬ 
clared  that  he  desired  no  pay  for  his  services;  thereupon 
began  the  long  series  of  conflicts. 

Among  the  first  difficulties  was  the  question  of  support  of 
government.  Following  the  New  York  method,  the  House 
insisted,  not  only  upon  full  control  over  actual  appropria¬ 
tions,  but  also  upon  complete  discretion  as  to  application. 
Although  at  first  both  Governor  and  Council  objected,  they 
had  finally,  in  order  not  to  lose  all  means  of  support,  to 
yield,  and  to  permit  the  passage  of  a  bill  far  too  specific  in 
its  application,  too  inadequate  in  the  amount  granted,  and 
too  limited  in  its  provision  for  only  three  years.  After 
what  proved  to  be  the  longest,  the  most  expensive,  and  per¬ 
haps  the  least  productive  session  in  the  history  of  the  colony, 
this  first  Assembly  under  the  separate  Governor  was  dis¬ 
solved.  It  had  been  marked  by  complete  failure  and  was 
fruitful  chiefly  in  dissension.  That  conflict  begot  friction 
that  was  only  too  great,  and  that  was  to  continue  with 
increasing  magnitude  down  to  the  death  of  Governor  Morris 
seven  years  later.21 

Subsequently  in  his  correspondence  Governor  Morris  thus 
expressed  his  opinion : 

There  is  so  much  Insincerity  and  Ignorance  among  the  people, 
and  with  so  rooted  a  Jealousy  of  their  Governors  &  so  strong  an 
Inclination  in  the  meanest  of  the  People  (who  are  the  majority, 

21  After  the  expiration  of  this  period,  the  support  grants  were  all  made  annually. 
Cf.  Edgar  Jacobs  Fisher,  New  Jersey  as  a  Royal  Province ,  1738-1776,  p.  277. 


392 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


&  whose  votes  make  the  Assembly)  to  have  the  sole  direction  of 
all  the  affairs  of  the  government,  &  to  make  the  governors  and 
other  officers  Intirely  dependant  upon  themselves,  that  it  re¬ 
quires  much  more  temper,  skill,  &  Constancy  to  overcome  these 
difficulties  than  falls  to  every  man’s  share.22 

And  regarding  the  support  of  the  government,  he  wrote 
to  the  Board  of  Trade: 

The  Assembly  have  been  with  much  ado  prevailed  with  to 
support  the  government  for  three  years  &  would  have  me  and 
everybody  else  believe  that  in  this  case  they  have  done  wonders 
.  .  .  but  .  .  .  this  wonderful  support  is  wonderfully  small,  and 
not  agreeable  to  the  addresses  to  his  Majestie,  or  sufficient  .  .  . 
etc. 

He  then  referred  to  information  given  him  by  one  of  the 
members  as  to  the  Assembly’s  policy  in  keeping  salaries 
low: 

Let  us  keep  the  dogs  poore,  and  we’ll  make  them  do  what  we 
please.23 

Thus  the  first  session  passed  without  harmony,  striking 
the  dominant  note  that  occurred  with  increasing  discord  in 
subsequent  meetings  down  to  the  Governor’s  death  seven 
years  later.24 

The  new  Assembly,  from  which  Morris  probably  hoped 
for  a  more  friendly  feeling,  met  on  April  10,  1740.  But  the 
political  philosophy  of  the  few  new  members  did  not  change 
the  former  hostile  policy.  In  his  opening  address  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  dwelt  upon  the  delinquencies  of  the  former  body, 
requested  the  present  Assembly  to  refrain  from  attempts 

22  Lewis  Morris  to  Sir  Charles  Wagner,  May  10,  1739,  Morris  Papers ,  in  New 
Jersey  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  IV,  40. 

23  Lewis  Morris  to  Lords  Commissioners  of  Trade  and  Plantation,  May  26, 
1739,  Morris  Papers,  p.  47. 

24  All  above,  not  otherwise  cited,  from  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  pp.  105-109. 


NEW  JERSEY 


393 


to  exercise  powers  other  than  its  own,  and  urged  immediate 
aid  for  the  expedition  then  planned  against  the  Spanish 
West  Indies. 

The  Assembly,  while  it  did  not  refuse  point-blank  to  con¬ 
sider  the  latter,  delayed  action  as  long  as  possible.  This 
seems  to  have  been  their  way  of  expressing  umbrage  at  the 
Governor’s  uncomplimentary  and  unconciliatory  address. 

Finally,  when  the  bill  had  passed,  Morris  suggested  cer¬ 
tain  modifications,  which  the  Assembly  refused.  The 
session  then  uselessly  dragged  on  until  the  end  of  July, 
1740.  They  had  sat  three  months  and  accomplished  nothing 
except  to  widen  the  breach  with  the  Governor. 

During  the  next  session,  more  than  a  year  later,  there 
were  no  serious  controversies.  Alteration  according  to  the 
Governor’s  wishes  of  the  militia  act  above  referred  to  was 
refused.  The  old  three-year  support  bill  of  1738  expiring 
at  this  time,  a  new  one  was  passed  providing  for  only  one 
year.  The  reins  were  being  tightened. 

In  his  letter  to  the  Board  of  Trade  commenting  on  this 
Assembly,  Governor  Morris  referred  to  its  apparently  “very 
*  good  temper”  as  due  to  his  employment  of  the  “softest  way 
of  treating  them.”  One  reason  for  his  caution  was  probably 
the  general  trend  of  political  developments,  which  in  that 
letter  were  described  as  follows : 

The  Assembly  at  New  York  had  been  rash  enough  to  resolve 
that  they  would  not  raise  any  support  for  the  Government  there 
unless  the  Governor  assented  to  all  the  bills  they  had  sent  or 
should  send  up  to  him.  .  .  .  The  nature  of  the  resolve  is  too 
obvious  to  your  Lp’s  to  need  any  remarks  upon  it.  This  &  other 
things  shows  what  Assemblies  in  this  part  of  the  world  are  arriv¬ 
ing  at,  &  what  is  not  unlikely  to  be  the  success  unless  they  meet 
with  some  more  Effectual  check  than  they  have  hitherto  done. 
Some  of  our  Assembly  did  not  want  inclination  to  follow  the 
Examples,  .  .  .  etc.25 

26  Morris  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  Dec.  16,  1741,  Morris  Payers,  p.  139. 


394 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Not  until  October  of  1742  was  the  next  session  commenced. 
In  spite  of  the  period  of  prorogation,  policies  had  not  been 
changed ;  therefore  the  Governor’s  hopes  of  a  still  more  peace¬ 
ful  meeting  were  vain.  To  two  of  the  bills,  one  declaring  how 
right  of  a  feme  covert  could  be  converted  or  extinguished,  the 
other  concerning  the  acknowledgment  of  deeds,  the  Gov¬ 
ernor,  through  fear  of  the  King’s  censure,  objected.  The 
Assembly  at  this  session  had  a  pet  measure  regarding  the 
reduction  and  regulation  of  fees  of  law  practitioners.  Ex¬ 
pecting  opposition  they  tried  to  force  it  through  as  a  rider 
to  the  annual  support  bill,  but  failed.  Another  favorite 
measure  concerned  the  issue  of  £40,000  in  bills  of  credit. 
So  anxious  were  they  to  have  this  succeed  that  £500  was  to 
go  to  the  Governor,  with  no  mention  of  the  fact  to  the 
ministry.  Morris,  however,  interpreted  this  as  a  direct 
bribe,  and  indignantly  refused  both  the  money  and  his 
assent.  The  latter  amounted  to  a  veto  of  the  measure, 
which  he  might  prudently  have  left  to  the  ministry,  thus 
diverting  from  himself  the  consequent  ill  will.26  At  this 
session  the  Assembly  also  attempted  to  assume  a  sort  of 
appellate  judicial  jurisdiction,  by  instituting  measures  to 
reverse  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  colony.  This 
jurisdiction  was  really  vested  in  the  Governor  and  Council. 
An  extreme  offense  was  an  act  proposed  to  arrange  the  spe¬ 
cific  application  of  the  support  money  already  appropriated. 
Morris  thereupon  dissolved  the  Assembly.27 

In  the  new  Assembly  that  met  in  October,  1743,  negotia¬ 
tions  were  begun  for  a  diplomatic  barter.  It  was  intimated 
to  the  Governor  by  the  House  that  if  he  would  assent  to 
whatever  bills  they  passed,  they  would  make  no  difficulties 
over  the  support  bill.  The  House  had  two  favorite  bills  in 
mind,  both  of  which  had  been  previously  disallowed  by  the 

26  Cf.  Morris  Papers,  pp.  154,  155;  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  213. 

27  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  213.  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  pp.  103-115. 


NEW  JERSEY 


395 


King.28  Morris  straightway  refused  any  participation,  but 
only  in  words.  When  the  bill  in  question  actually  came  up, 
he  assented,  and  did  so,  as  he  himself  states,  according  to 
the  terms  of  the  bargain: 

The  support  of  the  Government  still  depending,  &  knowing 
how  desirous  the  Assembly  were  of  making  any  pretense  to  differ, 
the  Council  chose  rather  to  pass  them  with  a  suspending  clause, 
than  to  reject  them  at  that  time.29 

Difficulties  concerning  those  bills  were  not  dispensed 
with.  The  Council  had  passed  the  fee  bill  with  a  suspending 
clause.  This  virtually  meant  a  refusal,  for  the  suspending 
clause  prevented  enactment  into  law  pending  the  King’s 
decision,  who  had  previously  disallowed  it,  and  might  again 
do  so.  Knowing  all  this  the  House  passed  a  resolution  to 
the  effect  that  this  bill  “ought  to  have  due  weight  with  the 
judges  and  all  others  concerned.”  When  Morris  interpreted 
this  as  a  practical  recall  of  the  suspending  clause,  the  House 
informed  him  that  it  was  simply  an  expression  of  opinion, 
for  which  they  were  accountable  to  no  one.  Morris  there¬ 
upon  prorogued  the  Assembly.30 

The  next  session,  held  six  months  later,  lasted  less  than 
two  weeks.  It  was  in  June-July  of  1744,  after  war  had  been 
declared  by  England  against  France.  The  subject  of  con¬ 
tention  was  the  militia  act.  When  the  Governor  urged 
measures  for  rendering  it  more  efficient,  the  Assembly 
resolved  that  the  old  act  was  sufficient,  and  requested  a 
recess  over  the  harvest  time.  This  was  refused  and  Morris 
held  them  over  until,  through  the  Council,  a  new  militia 
act  was  drafted  and  sent  down  for  their  approval.  The  new 

28  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  p.  182.  Regarding  feme  covert,  and  regulation  of  fees  above 
referred  to.  Objection  to  the  fee  bill:  it  lessened  salary  of  judges,  etc.,  thus  in¬ 
directly  lowering  the  standing  and  the  authority  of  even  the  Supreme  Court. 

29  Morris  to  Board  of  Trade,  Morris  Papers ,  p.  182.  It  is  presumed  that  the 
Council  acted  with  knowledge  of  and  on  advice  from  the  Governor.  His  son  was 
a  member,  and  the  body  small;  hence  his  great  possible  influence. 

30  On  Dec.  10,  1743.  See  New  Jersey  Archives,  XV,  314. 


396 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


part  of  the  act  referred  to  the  Quakers,  who  objected  to 
warfare  and  for  whom  the  act  proposed  a  money  substitute 
for  personal  service.  But  it  was  rejected  by  the  House,  and 
dissolution  followed. 

In  the  election  of  new  members,  the  Governor  was 
again  disappointed.  At  their  meeting  on  Aug.  18,  1744,  he 
repeated  his  recommendation  regarding  both  the  defenses 
and  the  militia  act;  but  the  Assembly  would  promise  no 
more  than  to  grant  necessary  supplies  as  the  emergency 
required.  Meantime,  letters  had  come  from  Governor 
Clinton  of  New  York  urging  the  necessity  of  concerted 
action.  The  Assembly  asked  to  be  adjourned.  When  they 
met  again  in  October,  their  hold  upon  the  government  became 
even  stronger.31  Sickness  had  prevented  Morris  from  making 
the  usual  address,  but  the  Assembly  needed  no  suggestions. 
At  this  session  they  managed  to  pass  their  favorite  measure, 
namely,  the  bill  for  a  £40,000  issue  in  bills  of  credit,  and 
this  in  spite  of  the  knowledge  that  Parliament  was  consid¬ 
ering  an  act  to  prevent  just  such  enactments.  Consequently 
they  could  expect  only  disapproval.  Their  reason  for  passing 
it,  according  to  Morris,  was  a  play  to  popular  favor  and  a 
pretext  for  alleging  lack  of  funds  in  the  colony.  This  latter 
would  be  the  prelude  to  a  reduction  of  the  support  bill  and 
of  salaries.  The  reduction,  when  it  finally  came,  cut  the 
Governor’s  salary  in  half.32  The  reins  were  still  tightening. 

The  opinion  of  the  Assembly  regarding  this  parliamentary 
act  is  interesting: 

An  Encroachment  upon  the  fundamental  constitution  of  this 
colony  and  the  Concession  made  to  the  first  settlers  thereof  — 
but  allso  distructive  of  the  liberties  and  properties  of  his  Majesty’s 
subjects.33 

31  Chalmers,  op.  cit.,  II,  214.  Morris  Papers,  p.  196. 

32  Morris  to  Board  of  Trade,  Jan.  23,  1745,  Morris  Papers,  pp.  215-217;  cf. 
also  p.  202.  Salary  was  reduced  from  £l,000  to  £500. 

33  Taken  from  Assembly  Journal,  and  quoted  in  Morris  Papers,  p.  221. 


NEW  JERSEY 


397 


There  arose  also  considerable  controversy  over  the  fact 
that  the  offices  of  Supreme  Court  judge  and  of  Councillor 
were  held  by  the  same  man,  who  happened  to  be  the  Gov¬ 
ernor’s  son.  They  also  complained  that  public  business  was 
hindered  by  the  very  small  number  of  Councillors,  probably 
on  the  insinuated  basis  that  the  smallness  of  that  body  made 
easier  its  manipulation  by  the  Governor.  The  objection  to 
one  incumbent  for  the  two  offices  was  stated  in  part  as 
follows : 

And  how  unhappy  may  be  the  case  of  those  who  have,  or  shall 
have,  occasion  to  remove  a  cause  or  causes  from  the  Supreme 
Court  and  bring  it  before  the  Governor  and  Council,  when  perhaps 
the  same  judge  that  gave  judgment  in  the  Court  may  be  one  of 
the  Council  to  judge  it  again.34 

At  this  session  also  they  ordered  that  the  fee  bill,  despite 
the  suspending  clause,  be  printed.  This  was  tantamount 
to  declaring  it  law  over  the  King’s  possible  veto.  They 
refused,  moreover,  conferences  with  the  Council  regarding 
amendment  to  the  militia  bill  that  they  had  passed.  And 
finally,  when  the  Council  refused  assent  to  such  bills,  they 
withheld  support  for  the  government.  According  to  the 
Governor: 

Their  reasons  of  doing  so  appeares  by  their  own  votes  to  be, 
because  I  rejected  their  bills,  tho  agreed  to  by  the  Councill  .  .  . 
&  because  the  Councill  have  not  assented  to  bills  which  they 
(the  Assembly)  thought  essentially  necessary;  .  .  .  and  there¬ 
fore  the  government  is,  and  is  likely  to  continue  without  support, 
until  what  they  require  is  comply’d  with;  and  then  to  have 
what  support  they  please  to  give.35 

All  this  was  in  vehement  prosecution  of  advantages  al¬ 
ready  gained.  There  was  another  dispute  in  the  same 

34  Morris  Papers,  p.  203.  Apparently,  the  Assembly  had  forgotten  the  law 
forbidding  the  chief  justice  to  sit  again  in  Council  upon  a  case  previously  ad¬ 
judicated  by  himself. 

36  Morris  to  Board  of  Trade,  Jan.  23,  174.5,  Morris  Papers,  p.  22.5. 


398 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


session  regarding  the  competency  of  justices  of  the  peace 
voting  on  election  of  the  loan  office  commissioner.  In  a 
protested  election  the  Assembly  had  attempted  to  decide. 
Morris,  however,  maintained  that  the  affair  was  not  in  their 
jurisdiction  but  pertained  to  the  courts.  Dissolution  ended 
the  quarrel  for  the  time  being.  The  session  was  surely  not 
uneventful  or  without  consequence,  but  it  was  absolutely 
unfruitful  of  present  political  good. 

As  if  to  stamp  the  session  as  a  comedy  of  errors,  the  only  act 
passed  provided  for  the  destruction  of  crows,  blackbirds,  squirrels 
and  woodpeckers  in  three  counties.36 

Morris  himself,  scanning  conditions  in  other  colonies  also, 
made  the  following  significant  comment : 

The  too  great  and  unwarrantable  encroachments  of  Assemblyes 
in  more  than  one  of  the  northern  plantations,  seems  to  make  it 
necessary  that  a  stop  some  way  or  other  should  be  put  to  them, 
&  they  reduced  to  such  propper  and  legall  bounds  as  is  consistent 
with  his  majesty’s  Prerogative  and  their  dependance,  to  prevent 
a  growing  evill  which,  if  time  gives  more  strength  to  may  be 
difficult  to  cure:  ...  I  intend  to  call  a  new  Assembly  together 
in  the  Spring  timely  enough  to  provide  for  the  defence  of  the 
province.  ...  I  have  already  try’d  two  Assemblies  on  that 
head  without  effect,  &  the  second  ended  with  denying  a  support; 
what  the  third  will  do,  a  little  time  will  discover.37 

Before  considering  the  happenings  in  this  Assembly,  it 
should  be  noted  that  it  was  the  third  new  one  in  the  space  of 
three  years.  This  was  extraordinary.  New  York  had 
fought  for  the  enactment  of  a  bill  providing  a  new  Assembly 
at  least  once  in  three  years,  and  had  failed.  The  best  it 
could  obtain  was  a  Septennial  Act.  Governors  often  found 
it  very  convenient  to  keep  in  existence  an  Assembly  that 

36  Allinson,  Statutes  of  New  Jersey,  p.  138.  Fisher,  p.  122. 

37  Morris  to  Board  of  Trade,  Morris  Payers,  p.  226. 


NEW  JERSEY 


399 


was  pliant  or  non-aggressive.  Yet  New  Jersey  had  three 
new  iVssemblies  in  as  many  years.  This  fact  alone  points 
to  strained  relations  with  the  executive. 

This  third  Assembly  met  on  April  5,  1745.  Judging  from 
the  personnel,  Morris  could  expect  no  change  in  policy. 
His  first  address  was  unfortunately  a  tirade  against  the 
shortcomings  of  the  former  House.  He  told  the  newly  elected 
body  that  they  must  support  the  government,  or  he  would 
assent  to  none  of  their  bills.  And  then,  in  the  midst  of  his 
heated  harangue,  he  dilated  upon  the  advantage  of  coolness 
and  deliberation  in  the  handling  of  delicate  affairs. 

The  Assembly  took  his  advice,  waited  three  weeks,  and 
then  very  coolly  replied.  In  the  first  place,  they  did  not 
appreciate  denunciation  of  their  predecessors.  As  to  the 
support  bill,  they  had  done  their  full  duty.  The  bill  had 
passed  the  House,  but  was  rejected  by  the  Council.  They 
also  regretted  that  His  Excellency  had  determined  to  assent 
to  no  legislation  until  the  support  bill  should  pass.  There¬ 
fore  no  legislation  was  attempted.  After  about  two  weeks 
the  Governor  replied  with  a  repetition  of  his  tirade  and  an 
account  oh  other  troubles  not  then  mentioned.  He  main¬ 
tained  that  the  Assembly’s  duty  was  to  support  the  govern¬ 
ment,  and  not  to  quarrel  with  the  Governor.38 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  their  quarrel  was  to  some  extent  with 
Morris,  for  when  requests  for  co-operation  came  from  other 
sources,  agreement  was  prompt.  Shirley’s  letter  asking  aid 
received  an  immediate  answer  in  a  grant  of  £2,000.  The 
Governor’s  personality,  according  to  memoirs,  was  such  as 
to  arouse  antagonism.  His  age  too  was  a  factor.  He  seemed 
to  feel  that  his  own  solutions  were  always  the  best.  Hence 
he  could  brook  no  opposition  or  even  consider  suggestion. 

On  the  day  that  the  £2,000  grant  was  made  there  was 
another  philippic  from  Governor  Morris.  Covering  the 

38  May  2,  to  May  13,  1745.  It  is  interesting  to  compare  with  this  his  own  tirade 
against  Governors.  Cf.  supra,  p.  12,  notes. 


400 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


same  ground,  he  declared  that  he  would  assent  to  no  issue 
of  £40,000  in  bills  of  credit  in  exchange  for  a  government 
support  bill. 

The  government  went  unsupported.  For  three  weeks 
nothing  beyond  a  series  of  adjournments  occurred.  Dead¬ 
lock  had  made  further  meetings  useless.  The  Governor 
therefore  prorogued  the  Assembly  until  August  16,  when 
it  was  to  convene  at  Trenton,  and  not  as  usual  at  Bur¬ 
lington  or  Perth  Amboy.  Immediately  upon  the  open¬ 
ing  of  this  session,  there  was  a  dispute  over  the  place  of 
meeting  and  a  demand  to  see  the  Governor’s  instruc¬ 
tions  on  this  matter.  Morris  refused;  prorogation  soon 
followed.39 

In  the  mean  time  anti-proprietary  manifestations  had 
taken  on  the  character  of  riots  and  had  become  a  menace, 
so  much  so  that  the  power  of  the  legislature  was  invoked 
to  interfere.  Morris  had  urged  measures  designed  to  cope 
with  the  situation.  But  the  Assembly,  which  represented 
about  the  same  class  among  the  people  that  was  anti¬ 
proprietary,  did  nothing  in  response  either  to  this  or  to 
his  repeated  requests  for  support  of  the  government  and 
for  attention  to  the  militia  problem.40 

Nor  did  the  reply  from  the  members  lead  to  harmony, 
or  offer  even  a  promise  of  co-operation.  If  bills  had  failed 
to  pass,  and  the  government  as  a  consequence  was  without 
proper  support,  it  was  not  the  fault  of  the  House.  That 
body  had  passed  the  necessary  measures,  but  frustration 
or  invalidation  had  been  caused  either  through  prorogation 
by  the  Governor  or  refusal  of  assent  by  the  Council;  and 
they  drove  home  the  shaft  by  a  hint  from  the  Bible:  “If  a 

39  Sept.  24,  1745. 

40  For  account  of  the  origin,  progress,  and  results  of  these  disturbances  cf. 
Fisher,  op.  cit.,  Ch.  VI.  The  problem:  to  get  the  Assembly,  which  was  largely 
Quaker,  to  supply  men  for  war.  Supplies  represented  the  greater  portion  of  their 
aid. 


NEW  JERSEY 


401 


ruler  hearken  to  lies,  all  his  servants  are  wicked.” 41  All  this 
was  sent  to  the  Governor,  who  was  too  sick  to  attend  to 
the  session. 

Meanwhile,  the  Assembly  was  becoming  restive  under  the 
inconveniences  arising  from  attending  sessions  at  Trenton, 
an  unaccustomed  place,  and  also  in  sitting  without  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  at  hand.  The  question  of  the  legality  of  the  session 
was  again  hinted  at,  and  they  began  to  put  off  all  business 
by  adjourning  from  day  to  day.  Then  came  an  inquiry  into 
the  admission  that  the  transfer  from  Burlington  had  been 
made  without  the  requisite  advice  from  that  body.  Pom¬ 
pously,  the  upper  House  refused  to  discuss  matters  of  state. 
Then,  through  a  committee,  they  put  the  same  question  to 
the  Governor  himself.  Morris  refused  to  receive  the  mes¬ 
sage,  whereupon  the  House  drew  up  a  formidable  and  formal 
resolve : 

Such  action  is  a  manifest  denial  of  freedom  of  access  to  the 
Governor,  and  of  the  privileges  of  the  House.  .  .  .  This  House 
are  determined  .  .  .  not  to  be  deprived  of  their  ancient  and 
accustomed  way  of  proceeding  .  .  . 

This  House  will  not  proceed  further  on  the  public  business 
.  .  .  until  the  question  of  where  the  Governor  derived  his  au¬ 
thority  of  transfer  is  answered.42 

The  Governor’s  reply  to  this  challenge  is  interesting.  It 
was  vehement,  vituperative,  and  controvertive  of  all  of  the 
Assembly’s  insinuations,  and,  by  quoting  from  authority 
equally  high,  energetically  replied  to  the  scriptural  sally. 
Not  to  the  Plouse  nor  to  any  member  of  it  had  privileges 
been  given  to  employ  insulting  expressions  in  order  to  vil- 

41  Cf.  Morris  Papers,  p.  274.  Proverbs,  XXIX,  12.  Another  version  reads: 
‘‘A  prince  that  gladly  heareth  lying  words  hath  all  his  servants  wicked.” 

42  On  grounds  that  messages  from  House  should  come  through  the  speaker. 
Morris  Papers,  p.  275.  But  they  laudably  made  exception  of  such  business  as 
might  affect  his  Majesty’s  special  service,  or  in  a  legal  manner  to  have  the  griev¬ 
ances  of  this  Colony  redressed.  Morris  Papers,  p.  276. 


402 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


lify  the  King’s  representatives  or  to  malign  the  King’s 
Council. 

These  Councillors  are  not  my  servants,  but  his  Majesty’s, 
and  is  there  any  reason  from  this  advice  (the  prorogation  from 
Amboy  to  Burlington)  to  conclude  that  the  advisors  are  Liars, 
and  Wicked?  .  .  .  Expressions  like  these  may  gratify  the 
wicked  temper  of  low  minds,  unacquainted  with  common  rules 
of  decency,  and  incapable  of  anything  above  the  scum  of  the 
people;  ...  In  a  late  address  from  your  house,  they  call 
themselves  “plowmen;”  to  such,  language  of  this  (abusive)  kind 
may  not  be  disagreeable.43 

On  the  same  day,  Oct.  18,  1745,  he  dissolved  them, 
and  soon  after  wrote  to  the  Board  of  Trade  that  they  had 
refused  to  employ  for  support  of  the  government  the  moneys 
already  in  the  treasury  — 

.  .  .  or,  at  most,  not  above  halfe  the  sum  usually  given,  unless 
the  Council  and  myself  will,  Previous  to  what  they  call  granting 
a  support,  assent  to  their  bill  making  £40,000  current  in  bills  of 
credit,  in  the  manner  they  have  drawn  it.  .  .  .  The  Government 
has  been  without  support  for  myselfe  or  any  of  the  officers  from 
September  1744  until  this  time.  (October,  1745.) 44 

On  the  same  occasion  he  also  wrote  that  he  was  himself 
defraying  expenses  of  expresses  into  and  out  of  the  colony, 
and  that  because  of  short  pay  he  found  difficulty  in  getting 
quorums  in  the  Council.  The  Assembly’s  reputed  loyalty 
in  making  the  £2,000  grant  toward  the  Cape  Breton  affair 
he  repudiated,  alleging  that  they  appropriated  that  money 

43  Morris  Payers,  p.  276.  The  following  is  the  Governor’s  scriptural  retort: 
“How  can  he  get  wisdom,  that  holdeth  the  plow,  and  that  glorieth  in  the  goad, 
that  driveth  oxen  and  is  occupied  in  their  labors,  and  whose  talk  is  of  bullocks? 
He  giveth  his  mind  to  make  furious;  and  is  diligent  to  give  the  kine  fodder.  .  .  . 
They  shall  not  be  sought  for  in  public  council,  nor  sit  high  in  the  congregation 
.  .  .  ,  etc.  Eccl.  XXXVIII,  25,  26,  33. 

44  Morris  to  Board  of  Trade,  Oct.  23,  1745,  Morris  Papers,  p.  280. 


NEW  JERSEY 


403 


from  the  funds  already  laid  aside  to  support  the  government, 
and  that  it  was  4 ‘not  unlikely  done  by  the  Assembly,  as 
much  with  a  view  to  distress  the  Government  as  any  other.” 

In  a  letter  to  Newcastle  written  during  the  previous  day, 
he  characterized  these  doings  as  — 

an  open  viollent  and  unlawful  attempt  to  alter  the  Constitution 
here,  and  assume  the  whole  power  of  Legislation  to  themselves.45 

The  new  Assemblv,  the  fourth  in  the  administration  of 
this  Governor,  met  on  March  4,  1746.  The  futility  of  the 
late  dissolution  was  shown  in  the  return  of  only  two  new 
members.  Morris’  first  address  was  very  unlike  himself, 
calm,  conciliatory,  and  tactful.  The  dangerous  state  of  the 
province,  land  troubles  in  Newark,  the  advantage  of  agree¬ 
ment  and  harmony,  attention  to  the  proper  support  of  the 
government,  —  these  were  his  topics.  The  House  replied  in 
similar  strain,  and  the  session  itself  proceeded  with  un¬ 
wonted  harmony.  Even  the  £40,000  credit  bill  went  past 
the  Council  to  the  Governor,  as  well  as  one  regarding  the 
militia.46 

On  the  support  bill,  however,  they  could  not  strike  a  com¬ 
mon  chord,  and  the  harmony  suddenly  ended  with  haggling. 
On  May  6  the  Assembly  promised  a  support  bill,  provided 
the  Governor  assented  to  bills  already  before  him.  Morris  in 
turn  promised  his  assent,  provided  the  Assembly  passed  the 
support  bill.  On  the  next  day  the  House  drew  up  conditions 
upon  which  they  would  pass  a  support  bill,  namely,  that  the 
Governor’s  salary  for  the  past  two  years  should  be  only  half 
the  usual  £1,000.  But  as  partial  compensation,  either  to 
him  or  to  his  executors,  they  would  grant  £1,000  out  of 
the  first  interest  from  the  £40,000  currency  issue. 

This  was  an  inducement  to  make  him  assent  to  the  cur¬ 
rency  bill,  which  at  that  moment  lay  before  him.  But  the 

45  Morris  to  Newcastle,  Oct.  22,  1745,  Morris  Payers,  p.  284. 

46  Ibid.,  pp.  303,  309. 


404 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


attempt  failed.  Morris  assented  only  to  the  militia  bill.47 
The  other  he  would  not  approve  until  the  support  bill  was 
passed  according  to  his  desire.  And  he  told  them: 

There  was  too  much  reason  to  believe,  that  from  the  beginning 
of  this  contest,  the  House  never  intended  to  join  in  the  support 
of  the  government;  but  made  use  of  several  pretenses  to  avoid 
the  doing  of  it. 

The  House  immediately  voted,  almost  unanimously,  that 
the  government  would  have  to  go  unsupported.  Here  was 
an  end  even  to  the  possibility  of  harmony.  Dissolution 
would  probably  have  ensued,  but  the  Governor’s  illness 
suddenly  prostrated  him,  and  in  a  few  days,  on  May  21, 
1746,  he  died. 

Now,  more  clearly  than  ever  before,  it  is  evident  that  the 
aim  of  the  House  was  to  make  the  Governor  as  far  as  possible 
the  servant  of  its  will,  rather  than  the  director.  This  is  seen 
during  the  administration  just  closed  in  the  employment  of 
the  support  bill  as  a  lever  to  force  all  desirable  measures. 
Practically  every  controversy  had  been  thus  settled  in  favor 
of  the  House.  Vetoes  and  disallowances  were  beginning 
to  mean  little,  because  usually,  through  the  support  bill, 
pressure  could  be  brought  to  bear  that  would  be  eventually 
sufficient  to  reverse  them.  Governor  Morris  left  the  As¬ 
sembly  in  the  very  strong  and  not  unmenacing  attitude  that 
is  begotten  of  actions  performed  with  impunity,  of  victory 
continually  repeated,  and  of  the  consciousness  of  the  pos¬ 
session  of  a  weapon  that  cannot  easily  be  withstood. 

The  successor  to  this  disturbed  inheritance  was  the  former 
Governor  of  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts,  Jonathan 
Belcher.  His  career  there,  as  you  have  seen,  was  one  long 
series  of  conflicts,  ending  finally  in  practical  expulsion. 
The  government  to  which  he  now  came  was  for  the  time 

47  Morris  to  Newcastle,  Oct.  22,  1745,  Morris  Payers,  pp.  309jf. 


NEW  JERSEY 


405 


scarcely  less  refractory  than  were  the  more  bellicose  northern 
colonies. 

In  spite  of  all  this,  however,  Belcher’s  relations  with  the 
New  Jersey  Assembly  bore  no  resemblance  to  his  past  expe¬ 
riences.  They  were  practically  devoid  of  conflict,  quite  cor¬ 
dial,  and  at  times  almost  sympathetic,  though  for  the  latter 
fact  the  Governor  did  not  escape  being  censured  by  the 
prerogative  men. 

At  first  Governor  Belcher’s  reception  by  the  House  was 
respectful,  but  no  more.  It  took  time  to  test  his  declared 
philosophy  of  forbearance.  But  after  the  test,  troubles  were 
practically  at  an  end.  Not  that  there  were  no  disputes  and 
some  situations  even  distressing,  but  the  causes  were  always 
laid  by  the  House  to  the  fault,  not  of  the  Governor,  but  of 
the  Council. 

Governor  Belcher’s  first  address,  Aug.  7,  1747,  was  in 
startling  contrast  to  the  late  invective  of  Morris.  It  was 
optimistic,  conciliatory,  and  flattering.  From  his  harrowing 
experiences  in  Massachusetts,  the  Governor  had  probably 
learned  the  futility  of  opposition.  The  support  bill  he  ap¬ 
proached  most  carefully,  saying  that  in  this  regard  the 
Assembly  had  a  privilege  and  a  duty;  and  that  he  had  no 
doubt  but  they  would  willingly  grant  support  for  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  with  a  fixed  yearly  salary  for  the  Governor,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  dignity  of  the  office.  But  time  brought  disappoint¬ 
ment  to  these  sanguine  hopes.  Deficiency  in  salary  forced 
Belcher  later  on  to  sell  portions  of  his  property  in  Massachu¬ 
setts  in  order  to  provide  for  himself.  Hence  he  called  the 
Assembly  “tolerably  honest,  but  stingy.”  His  policy,  how¬ 
ever,  or  his  lesson  learned  in  the  northern  colonies,  induced 
him  to  make  the  best  of  things  and  thus,  by  yielding  to  the 
inevitable,  to  avoid  conflict.48 

In  the  next  session  the  Assembly  brought  in  their  favorite 
measures,  which  had  been  failing  under  Morris,  and  “  tried 

48  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  pp.  133,  279,  280. 


406 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


them  out”  on  Belcher.  They  still  held  back  in  the  matter 
of  military  supplies  and  co-operation  in  the  new  Canadian 
offensive.  In  the  land  troubles,  which  had  developed  into 
riots  and  jail  breaking,  they  showed  no  inclination  to  concur 
with  the  Governor’s  suggestion  of  preventive  measures.49 
When  eventually  a  Riot  Act  was  passed,  only  to  be  contin¬ 
ually  and  flagrantly  violated  for  a  period  covering  two  years, 
there  came  some  indications  of  friction  directly  with  the 
Governor.  The  violent  uprisings  brought  a  series  of  appeals 
from  Belcher  to  the  Assembly  during  the  years  1749  and 
1750,  urging  measures  to  quell  the  disturbances.  But  the 
Assembly  disclaimed  jurisdiction;  it  was  an  affair  for  the 
courts,  not  for  the  legislature.  Belcher  then  renewed 
his  pleadings  to  the  King,  asking  for  special  instructions  to 
cover  the  difficulty.  But  the  instructions  were  long  in  com¬ 
ing,  and  for  three  more  years  the  Governor  urged,  while  the 
House  maintained  its  policy  of  non-interference.  Thus 
there  was  continual  non-agreement  in  this  matter,  but  no 
positive  controversy.  In  1754  the  Assembly’s  attitude  was 

49  These  anti-proprietary  demonstrations  continued  through  nearly  all  of 
Belcher’s  administration  and  proved  to  be  a  serious  menace,  approaching  even  to 
subversion  of  legitimate  political  authority.  There  is  a  brief  account  of  the  origin 
and  development  of  land  troubles  in  New  Jersey  in  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  pp.  171-209. 
The  general  attitude  of  the  Assembly  on  this  question  can  be  gleaned  from  the  fol¬ 
lowing  facts:  A  joint  committee  of  both  Houses  had  been  appointed  to  consider 
ways  and  means  of  restraining  the  movement.  Belcher  was  notified,  in  answer  to 
his  request  for  legislative  action  on  the  land  riots,  that  the  committee  had  been 
arranged.  But  the  House  members  were  by  no  means  keen  to  act.  Meetings  were 
continually  deferred.  Since  establishment  of  the  committee  in  August,  1747,  the 
Council  had  been  agitating  for  meetings;  yet  the  first  real  one  was  not  held  until 
December.  The  anxiety  of  the  Council  is  easily  explained  by  its  membership  — 
chiefly  of  proprietors.  The  Assembly  might  almost  be  said  to  represent  the  general 
class  of  non  or  anti  proprietors.  The  struggle  really  resolved  itself  into  a  contest 
of  the  proletariat  versus  the  bourgeoisie.  The  violence  of  riots  in  Hunterdon 
County  finally  resulted,  February,  1748,  in  the  passage  of  an  act  that  was  practi¬ 
cally  a  repetition  of  the  Riot  Act  of  Great  Britain.  Yet  the  Assembly’s  evident 
apathy  and  persistence  therein  made  trouble  for  Belcher  among  the  proprietary 
group.  They  suspected  him  of  complicity  or  debility,  or  both. 


NEW  JERSEY 


407 


indorsed  when  a  letter  to  Belcher  advised  the  settlement  of 
the  disputes  through  the  courts.  This,  after  nearly  fifty 
years  of  disturbance,  was  the  method  of  solution  ultimately 
adopted  for  the  cases  that  were  decided.  This  land  con¬ 
troversy  even  to  the  present  time  has  phases  that  have 
never  been  legally  decided. 

During  the  same  session,  on  New  Year’s  Day,  1748,  one 
of  the  old  conflicts  was  revived,  when  the  Assembly  an¬ 
nounced  the  principle  of  its  complete  control  of  both  the 
appropriation  and  application  of  public  funds.  The  Gov¬ 
ernor  was  also  informed  that  an  increase  in  salary  need  not 
be  expected.  Belcher  objected  to  the  support  bill  then 
offered,  but  the  House  refused  alteration.  In  this  dilemma 
of  taking  all  or  none,  Belcher  accepted  the  bill. 

This  session,  compared  to  those  under  Morris,  was  emi¬ 
nently  successful.50  During  the  three  months  of  business, 
nineteen  acts  were  passed.  The  Assembly  was  prorogued 
on  Feb.  8,  1748.  In  the  fall  session  of  the  same  year 
Governor  Belcher  again  raised  the  support  question,  but  to 
his  suggestion  the  Assembly  paid  no  attention  and  proceeded 
to  other  business.  A  second  message  was  also  ignored. 
Nevertheless,  it  was  during  this  session,  one  of  bitter  and 
continual  conflict  between  the  popular  party  in  the  House 
and  the  proprietary  influence  of  the  Council,  that  Belcher’s 
position  with  the  lower  House  was  strengthened.  He  man¬ 
aged  to  keep  discreetly  in  the  background  of  the  dispute, 
a  fact  noted  by  the  House  and  appreciated.  And  to  put 
just  the  proper  finish  to  this,  an  incident  occurred  that  was 
most  unusual  and  absolutely  unprecedented.  Belcher  had 
interrupted  the  rapid  exchange  of  very  curt  messages  between 
the  two  chambers  by  prorogation.  Shortly  after  the  proc¬ 
lamation,  the  Council  offered  the  Governor  certain  advice. 
Belcher  informed  them  that  their  advice,  when  desired, 
would  be  asked  for.  The  effect  of  this  upon  the  Assembly 

50  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  pp.  1  S5ff,  187-209. 


408 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


is  readily  inferred.  His  Massachusetts  experiences  had 
apparently  taught  him  some  lessons  in  diplomacy,  though 
somewhat  at  the  expense  of  allegiance  to  principles. 

Throughout  the  whole  of  Governor  Belcher’s  adminis¬ 
tration  of  ten  years  the  history  of  the  earlier  sessions  may 
be  said  to  have  repeated  themselves.  There  were  always 
the  same  questions,  the  same  disputes,  and  the  same  result 
—  with  Belcher  neither  prominent  on  one  side  or  the  other. 
His  term  was  really  filled  by  a  series  of  controversies  and 
conflicts  between  Assembly  and  Council.  It  is  true  that  at 
each  session  he  vainly  requested  measures  for  support  and 
for  suppression  of  the  land  troubles;  but  while  the  Assembly 
always  refused  full  co-operation,  it  declared  its  quarrel  to  be 
directly  with  the  Council.  Thus  throughout  practically  his 
whole  term,  a  term  in  which  times  were  strenuous,  con¬ 
troversies  violently  bitter,  and  opposing  factions  rampant, 
Governor  Belcher  managed,  as  has  been  said,  to  maintain 
relations  that  were  cordial  and  almost  sympathetic  with 
his  impetuous  Assembly.51  Whether  or  no  this  achievement 
was  a  virtue  is  open  to  question.  For  it  he  has  been  strongly 
censured.  The  fact,  virtue  or  not,  gave  him  a  term  in  New 
Jersey  which,  while  it  cannot  be  called  successful,  was  far 
more  peaceful  than  had  been  his  executive  experience  in  the 
north.  But  the  peace  he  procured  was  ominous.  It  was 
really  won  by  a  surrender.  He  simply  refused,  perhaps 
feared,  to  check  in  any  way  the  desires  of  the  Assembly. 
As  a  result,  the  trend  of  political  development  reached  in 

51  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  pp.  140-170.  There  was  a  slight  altercation  with  the  Assem¬ 
bly  on  the  occasion  of  his  convening  the  members  at  Elizabethtown,  instead  of 
one  of  the  two  usual  places.  They  petitioned  through  two  members  for  a  removal 
to  Amboy.  Belcher  may  have  by  this  time  tired  of  his  efforts  at  conciliation.  At 
any  rate  he  taxed  them  sharply  for  thus  making  a  proposal  that  should  really 
come  through  the  Council,  and  he  declared  the  action  a  mark  of  positive  disre¬ 
spect,  and  absolutely  unprecedented.  The  Assembly’s  reply  —  a  repudiation  of 
any  disrespectful  intention  —  was  far  from  respectful  itself.  But  the  immediate 
passing  of  a  support  bill  shows  that  the  squall,  practically  the  only  one,  blew 
quickly  over. 


NEW  JERSEY 


409 


his  time  its  completion:  the  House  had  become  the  master 
of  the  executive.52 

The  immediate  successors  of  Governor  Belcher  had  little 
difficulty  with  their  Assemblies.  In  fact,  for  New  Jersey 
the  subject  of  this  study  comes  really  to  an  end  after  the  time 
of  Governor  Morris.  There  were  subsequent  disputes  and 
disagreements  down  to  1776,  but  these  by  no  means  assumed 
either  the  virulence  or  the  significance  of  the  conflicts  with 
Governors  in  the  more  northern  colonies. 

Governor  Bernard,  in  his  short  term  of  one  year  (1758- 
1759),  had  little  trouble.  The  Assembly’s  conduct  was  fore¬ 
shadowed  by  the  declaration  in  reply  to  his  first  address, 
namely,  that  they  had  had  “Opportunity  to  form  Rational 
Prepossessions”  in  his  favor.  His  departure  was  esteemed 
“a  public  loss.”  53 

Thomas  Boone  ruled  but  a  year,  leaving  for  the  governor¬ 
ship  of  South  Carolina  in  April,  1761.  He  managed  to 
secure  a  two-year  support  bill,  an  index  to  peaceful  relations.54 
Josiah  Hardy  held  office  for  only  three  months,  beginning  in 
October,  1761;  yet  he  succeeded  in  gaining  the  good  will  of 
the  people,  who  objected  to  his  removal,  and  designated  his 
administration  as  “disinterested,  candid,  and  benevolent.”  55 

William  Franklin  was  the  next  as  well  as  the  last  royal 
Governor  of  New  Jersey.  He  continued  in  office  down  into 
the  heart  of  the  rebellion  in  1776.  His  career,  unfortunate 
owing  to  the  times  in  which  he  lived,  is  nevertheless  a  noble 
one  and  worthy  of  admiration.  He  was  a  son  of  Benjamin 
Franklin.  It  is  said  that  the  fact  of  his  illegitimate  birth 
was  the  occasion  of  much  of  the  hostility  against  him.  Gov¬ 
ernor  Franklin,  in  spite  of  the  influence  of  his  father’s  com¬ 
panionship  on  both  continents  and  in  England,  was,  as 

62  Chalmers,  Revolt,  II,  218-221. 

53  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  p.  162.  See  New  Jersey  Archives ,  IX,  188. 

54  Ibid..,  pp.  39,  165. 

55  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  pp.  39,  167.  Hardy  was  removed  for  alleged  disobedience  to 
his  instructions,  appointing  Supreme  Court  justices  during  good  behavior. 


410 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Benj  amin  himself  wrote,  ‘‘a  thorough  government  man.” 
He  held  office  during  a  most  trying  and  critical  period. 
The  first  part  of  his  term  was  really  a  reconstruction  era 
following  the  last  Intercolonial  War.  Then  came  the  Stamp 
Act  and  the  subsequent  pre-revolutionary  developments. 
During  all  this  time  he  was  in  office,  and  his  diplomacy 
maintained  almost  cordial  relations  with  the  Assembly. 
The  few  disputes  that  did  occur  were  rather  disagreements 
of  opinion  than  positive  conflicts  with  the  Governor.  The 
grievance  was  usually,  as  the  following  account  will  indicate, 
with  the  English  Parliament  and  ministry.  Franklin’s  devo¬ 
tion  to  a  principle,  his  loyalty  to  his  King,  even  at  the  risk 
of  his  life  and  in  spite  of  estrangement  from  his  father  and 
separation  from  his  wife,  mark  him  as  a  man  to  be  admired. 
His  position 56  was  similar  to  that  of  Hutchinson  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts.  One  wonders  what,  under  the  same  circumstances, 
would  have  been  the  conduct  of  a  wily  Belcher,  an  impet¬ 
uous  Morris,  or  a  fraudulent  Cornbury. 

Franklin’s  first  Assembly  lasted  from  1761  to  1768.57 
There  was  consequently  ample  time  for  the  formation  and 
strengthening  of  definite  policies  in  the  House,  and  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  building  up  a  strong  resistance  to  the  Governor. 
However,  until  the  passage  of  the  Stamp  Act  in  1765  there 
was  comparative  harmony.  At  that  time,  after  a  proposal 
to  adopt  resolutions  against  the  Stamp  Act  had  been  voted 
down  and  the  Assembly  had  actually  adjourned,  the  mem¬ 
bers  repented  of  their  negative  vote  and  convened  in  extra- 
official  gathering.  This  was  the  occasion  of  bitter  feeling 
between  themselves  and  the  loyal  Governor.  In  the  next 
session  there  was  a  vehement  speech  from  him,  denouncing 

56  Letter  to  Wm.  Franklin,  Oct.  23,  1773.  Cf.  Smyth,  Life  and  Writings  of 
Benjamin  Franklin,  VI,  144. 

For  biographical  sketch  cf.  W.  A.  Whitehead  in  N.  J.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  Series 
I,  III,  137;  cf.  also  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  pp.  39-43. 

67  Fisher,  pp.  167,  409-411.  The  Massachusetts  speaker  in  a  letter  urged 
united  action  against  British  tyranny. 


NEW  JERSEY 


411 


the  illegality  of  their  procedure,  declaring  that  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  government  had  been  violated,  and  that  the  present 
legal  Assembly  should  have  announced  formal  disapproba¬ 
tion  of  the  whole  affair.  At  the  above  mentioned  gathering 
three  delegates  were  chosen  for  the  Stamp  Act  Congress  in  j 
New  York  City.  This  storm  blew  quickly  over  after  the 
offending  law  was  repealed  in  1766. 

In  1766  came  news  that  some  of  the  King’s  troops  were 
to  be  quartered  upon  the  colony.  There  was  objection  to 
this,  and  Governor  Franklin  could  not  secure  full  co-opera¬ 
tion  in  carrying  out  the  instructions  from  England  regarding 
the  details  of  the  arrangements  for  supplies  and  housing. 
The  aftermath  of  the  Stamp  Act,  and  the  subsequent  Towns- 
hend  Duty  Acts  were  probably  in  part  responsible  for  this 
opposition.  Provisions,  however,  were  finally  granted, 
though  not  exactly  in  accord  with  directions  from  the 
ministry.  In  1770  the  Assembly  was  again  in  ugly  mood, 
owing  to  the  recent  disallowance  of  their  bill  for  the  issue  of 
£100,000  in  paper  money.  Franklin  again  urged  support 
for  the  King’s  troops,  but  for  a  month  no  heed  was  given  to 
his  exhortation.  The  answer  finally  declared  “that  no  fur¬ 
ther  Provision  be  made  for  the  supply  of  His  Majesty’s 
Troops  stationed  in  this  Colony.”  This  resolve  was  later  { 
mitigated,  and  £500  were  granted.  All  of  Franklin’s  appeals, 
as  well  as  his  arguments  proving  the  ability  of  the  province 
to  grant  more,  and  showing  the  insufficiency  of  the  appro¬ 
priated  sum,  were  to  no  purpose.  Three  sessions  passed  in 
1771  before  the  Governor  could  secure  a  grant  for  this 
purpose. 

There  had  also  been  disagreements  regarding  paper  money. 
During  ten  years  ending  in  1765,  the  grand  total  of  emis¬ 
sions  had  been  £342,500.  The  Assembly  then  proposed  a 
further  issue  of  £100,000,  to  aid  the  distressed  after- war 
conditions.  Franklin  refused  his  assent.  In  1768  another 
bill  for  the  same  amount  was  passed.  This  also  was  rejected. 


412 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Finally,  with  certain  modifications,  the  bill  was  signed  by 
him  in  1769,  only  to  be  disallowed  in  England.  The  Assem¬ 
bly  did  not  try  again  until  1774,  and  then  the  bill  went 
through,  again  modified,  however,  regarding  the  use  of  the 
paper  as  legal  tender.58 

In  1773,  in  connection  with  a  robbery  of  the  provincial 
treasury  that  had  previously  occurred,  there  came  another 
strain  in  Governor  Franklin’s  relations  with  the  Assembly. 
Conditions  can  be  inferred  from  their  informing  him  that 
his  attitude  toward  the  treasurer  would  decide  the  matter 
of  support  for  the  King’s  troops.  The  treasurer’s  resigna¬ 
tion,  however,  relieved  the  situation  and  support  was 
granted.59 

Meantime,  signs  of  positive  rebellion  had  arisen  in  all 
the  colonies.  Although  New  Jersey  was  among  the  most 
conservative  in  this  respect,  Governor  Franklin  still  thought 
it  prudent  to  refuse  to  convoke  the  Assembly  in  1774. 
Thereupon  an  Assembly  convened  itself,  in  a  meeting  of 
committees  chosen  from  each  county.  This  gathering  con¬ 
sidered  the  burning  questions  of  the  day,  —  the  unwarranted 
taxation  and  measures  for  removal  or  for  opposition,  the 
hostile  attitude  toward  England  shown  in  Massachusetts, 
in  New  York,  and  in  Virginia,  the  suggestions  of  independ¬ 
ence,  etc.  The  meeting  and  proceedings  at  Carpenters’ 
Hall,  in  Philadelphia,  were  ominous.  In  the  January  ses¬ 
sion  of  1775,  Franklin  reprimanded  the  Assembly  for  counte¬ 
nancing  illegal  meetings.  In  May  of  the  same  year,  he 
again  addressed  to  the  Assembly  a  warning  that  the  King 
would  be  forced  to  employ  very  harsh  measures  in  the  event 
of  further  manifestations  of  independence.  The  Assembly 
promised  mature  deliberation,  and  declared  that  nothing 
would  be  done  until  the  Continental  Congress  should  speak. 
Meanwhile  tidings  of  the  fighting  at  Lexington  and  Concord 

58  Fisher,  pp.  297-302,  432-436. 

59  Ibid.,  pp.  170,  308. 


NEW  JERSEY 


413 


had  traveled  through  the  South.  The  effect  was  tremend¬ 
ous.  Alarms,  arming  and  equipping  companies,  and  drilling 
speedily  followed.60 

A  second  Provincial  Congress  formed  of  committees  from 
each  county  met  on  May  2.  This  further  aroused  Governor 
Franklin.  The  general  feeling,  it  should  be  noted,  was  not 
directed  toward  the  Governor  nor  as  yet  against  the  King, 
judging  from  contemporary  declarations,  but  rather  against 
Parliament  and  the  ministry.  The  Governor,  while  not 
interfering  too  much,  remained  loyal  to  the  King.  As  late 
as  May,  1776,  he  decided  to  summon  the  Assembly.  The 
proclamation  was  issued,  and  this  was  the  beginning  of  the 
end  of  royal  authority  in  the  province.  The  Provincial 
Congress  resolved  that  Franklin’s  message  should  not  be 
obeyed,  declaring  him  to  be  an  enemy  of  the  people’s  lib¬ 
erties,  and  one  whose  person  must  be  immediately  secured. 
His  salary  was  stopped.  Franklin,  in  his  own  house,  stood 
his  ground.  Even  yet  the  Assembly  felt  no  vindictiveness 
against  him  personally.  His  administration  had  on  the 
whole  been  satisfactory.  Their  attitude  is  seen  in  the  in¬ 
structions  given  to  Colonel  Nathaniel  Heard,  who  was 
deputed  to  capture  him  with  all  the  delicacy  and  tender¬ 
ness  the  nature  of  the  business  can  possibly  admit.”  When 
Heard  presented  himself  for  this  duty  and  offered  Franklin 
the  privilege  of  parole  that  had  been  ordered,  the  Governor 
contemptuously  rejected  the  latter  as  an  insult  to  the  King.61 

He  was  taken,  however,  and  examined  by  the  Provincial 
Congress  as  to  his  conduct  and  opinions  regarding  the  lib¬ 
erties  of  America.  Though  helpless  in  the  midst  of  enemies, 
he  spurned  the  questions,  and  declared  that  an  usurped 

60  Fisher,  op.  cit.,  pp.  444-446,  458Jf. 

61  In  the  previous  session  of  November,  1775,  Franklin  had  pointedly  asked  the 
Assembly  if  they  thought  that  he  and  the  other  Crown  officials  should  fly,  as 
many  other  Governors  and  officials  had  already  done.  The  Assembly  professed 
surprise  at  the  question,  and  assured  him  that  the  laws  were  his  security.  Fisher, 
p.  470. 


414 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


authority  had  no  right  to  ask  them.  “He  was  a  worthy 
servant  of  a  less  worthy  king.”  Imprisonment  followed. 
In  1778,  in  an  exchange  of  prisoners,  he  was  released  from 
his  confinement  in  Connecticut,  went  to  New  York,  and 
became  president  of  the  Associate  Board  of  Royalists.  In 
1782  he  returned  to  England,  lived  on  a  pension  of  £800, 
and  died  in  1813.62 


62  Fisher,  p.  470. 


CONCLUSION 


The  existence  of  strained  relations  between  royal  Gov¬ 
ernors  and  their  Assemblies,  as  well  as  the  general  nature  of 
those  differences,  is  well  known.  The  present  investigation 
of  these  relations,  in  reference  to  the  northern  colonies, 
seeks  justification  chiefly  in  its  purpose  to  afford  more 
definite  and  detailed  information  concerning  the  principal 
controversies,  in  order  more  accurately  to  calculate  their 
influence  on  the  final  concerted  opposition  that  culminated 
in  complete  political  severance  from  the  British  Empire. 

Whether  or  no  the  colonials,  and  especially  their  leaders, 
were  conscious  of  the  fact,  the  causes  underlying  this  peren¬ 
nial  dissension  with  the  agents  of  the  Crown  were  founded 
in  the  prevalent  long-standing  and  unmistakable  tendencies 
toward  complete  political  freedom.  Often  it  was  the  fraud, 
the  usurpation,  the  tyranny,  the  misguided  zeal,  or  the 
genuinely  loyal  though  not  exactly  tactful  patriotism  of  the 
Governor  and  of  other  officers  of  the  Crown  that  occasioned 
the  disagreements;  but  at  bottom  the  chief  incentive  in 
these  conflicts  lay  in  the  colonial  conception  of  what  con¬ 
stituted  a  “legal  ”  political  control,  and  in  the  claim  to  be 
practically  a  court  of  final  appeal  on  questions  concerning 
the  interpretation  of  their  charter  rights  and  privileges. 
In  a  word,  the  causes  of  these  disturbed  relations  must  be 
sought  largely  in  the  gradually  but  surely  developing  philos¬ 
ophy  of  independence,  with  its  natural  abhorrence  of  super¬ 
imposed  political  direction  by  parliamentary  act,  and  espe¬ 
cially  by  royal  instruction. 

In  the  beginning,  that  is,  in  the  late  seventeenth  and  the 
early  eighteenth  centuries,  emphasis  was  placed  upon  pres¬ 
ervation  of  the  “rights  of  Englishmen”  as  defined  by  Eng- 


416 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


land;  but  at  a  later  period,  upon  the  same  rights  as  defined 
by  the  colonists  themselves.  The  story,  therefore,  of  the 
conflicts  and  controversies  with  the  royal  Governors  is  a 
narrative  of  the  gradual  change  in  these  political  attitudes, 
indicating  the  existence,  if  not  the  distinct  outlines,  of  the 
progressive  steps  in  this  political  evolution  toward  revolution. 

Surprising  is  the  unanimity,  in  all  the  colonies  under  dis¬ 
cussion,  of  the  troubles  with  the  royal  executives.  At  times 
various  and  frequent,  every  Assembly  aimed  at  greater 
restraint  on  the  powers  of  the  Governor  and  greater  control 
over  his  administration.  This  purpose  was  effected  largely 
by  pressure  in  the  matter  of  finances.  In  its  complete  control 
over  means  of  supporting  the  government  the  House  of 
Representatives  held  the  key  to  the  situation.  Any  unsat¬ 
isfactory  conduct  of  the  Governor  or  of  the  government 
came  to  be  synonymous  with  “unconstitutional”  conduct, 
and  support  would  accordingly  be  decreased  or  altogether 
withheld  —  thus  causing  paralysis  in  the  machinery  of  gov¬ 
ernment  and  no  small  hardship  for  the  Governor  personally 
—  until  the  “unconstitutional”  affairs  were  either  raised  or 
lowered  to  fit  the  political  norm  established  by  the  popular 
branch  of  the  government.  The  representatives  further 
increased  their  powers  by  the  practice  of  specifying  in  appro¬ 
priation  bills  the  exact  application  of  public  funds;  also  by 
the  later  insistence  upon  auditing  the  provincial  expenditures; 
and  finally,  despite  the  charter  provision  vesting  in  the 
Governor,  with  advice  and  consent  of  the  Council,  exclusive 
power  to  issue  warrants  on  the  treasury,  by  the  appointment 
of  their  own  “orthodox”  treasurer,  who  could  be  trusted 
to  ignore  all  warrants  save  those  from  the  House.  Gov¬ 
ernors  in  retaliation  might  veto  favorite  bills,  prorogue,  or 
change  the  place  of  meeting,  dissolve  refractory  Assemblies, 
and  lengthen  out  beyond  all  custom  the  existence  of  a  com¬ 
pliant  one.  In  addition  to  these  matters  was  the  Governor’s 
occasional  veto  of  the  elected  speaker,  and  in  Massachusetts 


CONCLUSION 


417 


of  Councillors;  refusal  to  approve  salary  grants  to  agents 
of  the  Assembly;  failure  to  further  legislation  by  the  As¬ 
sembly  for  the  erection  of  courts  of  equity  or  for  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  additional  seats  for  the  courts,  and  periodic 
interference  with  the  House  membership.  Then  the  never- 
ending  differences  concerning  paper  money  issues  furnished 
abundant  and  perennial  subjects  of  controversy.  In  New 
York  there  was  the  additional  trouble  over  attempted 
inductance  by  the  Anglican  executive  of  ministers  of  religion; 
while  in  New  Hampshire  and  New  Jersey,  other  special 
difficulties  were  occasioned  by  the  conflicting  claims  in  the 
Mason  and  Gorges  land  grants  and  disputes  over  proprietary 
rights. 

Of  all  these  conflicts,  those  connected  with  finances  were 
by  far  the  most  frequent  and  the  most  important.  The 
manifest  purpose  was  to  gain  control  of  the  province  moneys, 
the  stays  of  the  government,  thus  indirectly  securing  control 
of  the  government  itself.  With  this  forever  in  view  a  per¬ 
manent  support  was  systematically  denied:  a  Governor  and 
government  secure  of  support  would  be  subject,  in  case  of 
tyrannical  developments,  to  very  little  check.  The  further 
expedient,  dictated  by  the  same  policy,  of  determination  of 
the  specific  application  of  appropriations,  was  first  occa¬ 
sioned  by  the  positive  fraud  of  many  early  Governors. 
Unless  carried  into  effect,  however,  such  determination 
would  have  been  fruitless.  Hence  the  claim  to  audit  public 
expenditures;  and  next,  in  order  to  prevent  Governors 
from  drawing  money  on  warrant  from  the  Council  alone, 
the  insistence  of  the  House  upon  having  its  own  treasurer. 

These  practices  of  control,  which  in  the  beginning  had 
been  adopted  chiefly  as  protection  against  fraud,  were  not 
long  in  establishing  a  theory  in  which  such  control  was 
demanded  as  inherent  in  the  constitution  of  a  free  British 
people.  Thus  was  gradually  evolved  a  philosophy  of  inde¬ 
pendence;  and  so  strong  was  the  insistence  of  Assemblies, 


418 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


that  Governors  could  eventually  do  nothing  but  yield. 
The  alternative  was  loss  of  salary,  lack  of  support,  and 
consequent  confusion  in  the  machinery  of  government.  In 
these  struggles  against  the  royal  executives,  the  Assemblies 
were  rarely  defeated,  and  in  many  cases  the  representatives 
were  actually  controlling  the  executive.  There  was,  more¬ 
over,  scarcely  a  period  in  the  history  of  the  colonies  under 
discussion  when  one  or  more  controversies  was  not  somewhere 
in  progress.  Many,  indeed,  were  handed  down  from  House 
to  House  and  from  Governor  to  Governor.  Traditionally, 
therefore,  the  colonists  had  become  accustomed  to  political 
encounter  and  to  consistent  constitutional  victories.  One 
after  another  the  Assemblies  witnessed  the  discomfiture  of 
Governors  and  the  ungraceful  enforced  yielding  of  the 
parent  state.  Scarce  an  issue  was  decided  permanently  in 
the  colonists’  disfavor.  They  were,  in  short,  being  educated 
to  work  their  will. 

As  a  natural  result  of  years  of  successful  opposition  and 
aggression,  the  political  conscience  of  the  people  was  hard¬ 
ened;  there  no  longer  existed  the  old  fear  of  opposing  King 
and  Parliament.  Uninterrupted  impunity  of  violation  had 
shorn  from  the  royal  instructions  their  sanctity.  In  this 
sense  the  conflicts  and  controversies  between  Governors 
and  Assemblies  exerted  considerable  influence  on  the  sub¬ 
sequent  Revolution,  in  that  they  rendered  less  fearful  the 
hazards  of  that  venture.  As  a  cause,  however,  though 
important,  they  were  only  indirect,  serving  chiefly  to  lessen 
the  shock  of  the  final  impact. 

There  were  marked  differences  in  the  results  of  these  con¬ 
flicts  in  the  individual  colonies.  In  New  Hampshire  and 
in  New  Jersey  there  was  lacking  the  usual  bitterness  and 
vindictiveness.  Moreover,  despite  the  prominent  part 
taken  by  the  royal  Governors,  these  officials  were  not,  as  in 
Massachusetts  and  to  a  somewhat  less  degree  in  New  York, 
generally  regarded  as  enemies  of  political  liberty;  nor  were 


CONCLUSION 


419 


they  held  responsible  for  “encroachments”  upon  self-gov¬ 
ernment  and  independence  in  the  sense  that  the  Acts  of 
Parliament  and  the  instructions  to  Governors  were  later 
regarded.  The  dissatisfaction  toward  them  that  did  exist 
was  chiefly  negative,  —  that  is,  after  an  experience  in  self- 
government  long,  successful,  and  practically  uninterfered 
with,  the  people  naturally  preferred  absolute  freedom  in 
their  legislative  procedures  and  policies;  and  since  the 
Governor  was  the  instrument  of  England’s  restraints  upon 
this  enlarged  freedom,  he  could  not  well  escape  some  of  the 
transferred  disfavor.  On  the  whole,  however,  the  royal 
representatives  in  New  Hampshire  and  in  New  Jersey  were 
fairly  acceptable.  Both  colonies,  in  their  early  experiences 
with  executives  of  the  Cranfield  and  Cornbury  type,  were 
similarly  unfortunate;  both,  with  occasional  exceptions, 
obtained  thereafter  men  of  average  ability  who  were  not 
oppressors;  and  finally  both  closed  their  provincial  careers 
under  Governors  who  ranked  among  the  best  and  the  fair¬ 
est  that  ever  held  office  in  the  British  colonies.  It  may  be 
concluded,  therefore,  that  neither  colony,  in  its  determina¬ 
tion  to  rebel,  drew  appreciable  incentive  from  experiences 
in  the  conflicts  and  controversies  with  their  royal  Governors. 

In  Massachusetts-Bay  and  in  New  York,  the  story  is 
somewhat  different  both  as  to  general  conditions  and  con¬ 
sequent  conclusions.  Up  to  and  during  the  administrations 
of  Hutchinson,  Gage,  and  C olden,  there  had  been  continual 
disagreement  regarding  the  constitutional  powers  of  the 
executive,  arising  largely  over  varying  interpretations  of 
privileges  granted  in  the  charter,  and  of  the  extent  of  the 
colony’s  subordination  to  regulation  by  the  mandates  of 
British  colonial  policy.  In  the  train  of  all  this  came  increas¬ 
ingly  numerous  and  important  encroachments,  often  termed 
advances,  made  by  the  representative  body  into  grounds 
formerly  prohibited.  England,  therefore,  in  the  endeavor 
to  recoup  the  losses  sustained  through  repeated  defeat  or 


420 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


enforced  capitulation  of  royal  Governors,  issued  laws  and 
instructions  designed  to  end  the  conflicts  through  what  was 
intended  as  final  and  incontrovertible  decision  on  the  ques¬ 
tions  involved.  But  these  pronouncements  were  accepted 
neither  as  final  nor  incontrovertible,  in  manv  instances  meet- 
ing  with  successful  opposition.  Repeated  attempts  to  impose 
and  to  enforce  acceptance  engendered  the  gradually  wide- 
spreading  and  increasingly  sincere  conviction  that  colonial 
liberty,  and  with  it  the  “ancient  rights  of  Englishmen,” 
were  being  undermined;  hence  resistance,  and  eventually 
rebellion,  political  revolution,  and  permanent  separation. 

In  Massachusetts,  better  than  in  any  other  colony,  this 
theory  is  exemplified.  There,  from  the  very  beginning, 
trouble  had  existed;  and  as  one  dispute  after  another  ended 
in  victory  for  the  people,  through  their  representatives, 
opposition  to  control  by  Parliament  or  by  any  other  power 
increased,  while  proportionately  the  respect  for  the  pre¬ 
rogative  lessened  until  finally  it  entirely  disappeared.  The 
conflicts,  therefore,  served  as  an  initiation  and  a  rather 
thorough  training  in  political  encounter,  serving  to  dispel 
the  awe  usually  consequent  upon  the  mere  thought  of  resist¬ 
ing  royal  will  or  power,  and  to  engender,  as  generation  after 
generation  imbibed  the  increasingly  independent  principles 
of  its  forbears,  a  spirit  that  in  political  matters  refused  to 
brook  any  kind  of  interference  with  the  popular  will.  The 
powerless  deputies  of  1634  had,  by  Hutchinson’s  time, 
evolved  into  “his  Majesty’s  Commons;”  under  Gage,  the 
last  royal  Governor,  Massachusetts  was  in  fact  functioning 
as  an  independent  state,  though  professing  profoundest 
loyalty  to  the  empire  and  the  King. 

Before  proceeding  to  a  general  conclusion  from  the  fore¬ 
going  investigation  of  conditions  in  only  four  of  the  royal 
colonies,  it  may  not  be  altogether  wrong  to  infer  from  the 
data  brought  to  light  that  on  the  whole  conditions  con- 


CONCLUSION 


421 


tinentally  were  similar.  These  stormy  relations  between 
royal  Governors  and  their  Assemblies  cannot  be  listed  among 
the  direct,  immediate  causes  of  the  Revolution.  Their 
part  was  rather  secondary  and  underlying,  though  not 
without  extreme,  even  critical,  importance.  While  they 
would  never  of  themselves  have  proved  sufficient  provoca¬ 
tive  for  the  rebellion,  they  provided  an  indispensably  neces¬ 
sary  pre-requisite,  that  is,  the  training  and  the  inuring  of 
the  colonial  mind  to  opposition  and  aggression.  They  were 
also  a  source  of  experience  in  political  encounter,  an  experi¬ 
ence  which  in  this  connection  cannot  well  be  ignored,  inas¬ 
much  as  it  was  accompanied  and  encouraged  by  a  long  line 
of  political  victories  stretching  back  through  more  than  half 
a  century.  To  oppose  the  laws  of  England,  to  disregard 
with  impunity  her  commands,  to  submit,  when  they  did 
submit,  only  on  their  own  conditions;  in  a  word,  by  some 
means  or  other  to  assume,  to  wrest,  to  win,  even  as  Parlia¬ 
ment  was  assuming,  wresting,  winning,  practically  every 
political  object,  —  this  was  one  phase,  the  significant  one, 
in  the  story  of  these  conflicts.  They  gave  rise  really  to  an 
ominous  condition:  it  was  natural  for  the  colonists  to  oppose, 
to  make  their  own  demands  and  to  see  them  granted,  to 
feel  that  England’s  control  was  gradually  being  permitted, 
rather  than  imposed.  In  fact,  it  had  come  to  be  a  surprise, 
an  unwarranted  grievance,  when  the  popular  will,  expressed 
in  requests  founded  upon  the  “constitutional  rights  of 
Englishmen,”  was  denied  or  opposed.  As  a  consequence, 
with  opposition  and  political  skirmishes  of  one  sort  or 
another  continually  in  progress,  the  colonists  were  not  as 
greatly  shocked  as  they  might  otherwise  have  been  by  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  for  so  gradually  and  so  long 
had  the  clouds  of  rebellion  been  gathering,  that  the  people 
hardly  realized  the  tremendous  principles  involved. 

Even  in  the  present  day,  historians  speculate  on  the 
causes  of  this  war  for  independence.  The  issue,  instead  of 


422 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


becoming  more  distinct,  seems  even  more  obscure.  The 
occasions  are  well  known;  the  fundamental  causes  are  yet 
to  be  more  accurately  determined.  But  no  enumeration  of 
those  causes  will  be  complete  which  does  not  give  vital 
prominence  to  the  conflicts  and  controversies  between 
Assemblies  and  the  roval  Governors. 

t/ 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Manuscript  Sources 


Transcripts  of  Instructions  and  Additional  Instructions  to  Royal 
Governors ,  together  with  Letters  from  the  Lords  of  Trade  and  the 
Board  of  Trade ,  chiefly  in  Relation  to  Massachusetts  Bay. 

These  Transcripts  were  made  under  the  direction  of  Mr. 
Albert  Matthews  for  the  Colonial  Society  of  Massachusetts, 
and  contain  over  two  thousand  pages  of  material.  They 
are  now  deposited  in  the  Library  of  the  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society,  Boston,  Massachusetts. 

British  Transcripts  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Letters  of  Governor  Bernard ,  Sparks  Collection,  IV,  in  Harvard 
College  Library. 

This  contains  thirteen  volumes,  in  which  is  much  important 
data  necessarily  omitted  from  the  one-volume  compilation 
prepared  by  Messrs.  Channing  and  Coolidge,  under  the 
general  title,  Barrington- Bernard  Correspondence. 

Documents,  consisting  of  letters,  proclamations,  reports,  etc., 
in  the  Archives  Division  of  the  State  House,  Boston,  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  especially  volumes  with  titles:  Legislature ,  Letters. 

General  Printed  Sources 

Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  England ,  Colonial  Series,  Vol.  VI,  The 
Unbound  Papers ,  London,  1912. 

American  Archives ,  Force,  Washington,  D.  C.,  1837-1848,  Vols. 
IV,  V. 

Adams,  James  Truslow.  The  Founding  of  New  England ,  Boston, 

1921. 

Adams,  John.  History  of  the  Dispute  with  America ,  London, 
1784. 

Adams,  John.  Novanglus,  in  Works ,  IV,  Boston,  1850-1856. 

Andrews,  C.  M.  The  Colonial  Period,  New  York,  1912. 

Andrews,  C.  M.  Colonial  Self  Government  in  America,  1652 - 
1689,  New  York,  1904. 


424 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Andrews,  C.  M.  List  of  Commissions ,  Instructions ,  and  Addi¬ 
tional  Instructions  issued  to  the  Royal  Governors  and  others  in 
America,  Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Associa¬ 
tion  for  1911,  pp.  393-528. 

Bancroft,  George.  History  of  the  United  States ,  Boston,  1891. 
10  vols. 

Channing,  Edward.  A  History  of  the  United  States,  New  York, 
1905-1922.  5  vols. 

Chalmers,  George.  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Revolt  of 
the  American  Colonies,  Boston,  1845.  2  vols. 

Cheyney,  E.  P.  European  Background  of  American  History, 
New  York,  1904. 

Doyle,  J.  A.  English  Colonies  in  America,  London,  1882.  5  vols. 

Franklin,  Benjamin.  Writings ,  edited  by  A.  H.  Smyth,  New 
York,  1905-1907.  10  vols. 

Greene,  E.  B.  The  Provincial  Governor,  New  York,  1904. 

McCormac,  E.  I.  Colonial  Opposition  to  Imperial  Authority 
during  the  French  and  Indian  War ,  Berkeley,  California, 
1911. 

Osgood,  Herbert  L.  History  of  the  American  Colonies  in  the  17th 
Century ,  New  York,  1904-1907.  3  vols. 

Palfrey,  John  Gorham.  History  of  New  England,  Boston, 
1858-1890.  5  vols. 

Pownall,  Thomas.  Administration  of  the  Colonies,  London, 
1765. 

Weeden,  W.  B.  Economic  and  Social  History  of  New  England, 
Boston,  1890.  2  vols. 

Winsor,  Justin.  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America, 
New  York,  1887-1889.  8  vols. 

Massachusetts 

Journals  of  the  Houses  of  Representatives  of  Massachusetts  Ray, 
1715-177 J. 

A  complete  set  of  these  Journals  cannot  be  found  in  any 
one  place,  although  the  file  in  the  Archives  Division,  State 
House,  Boston,  is  complete  from  1730  to  1773,  inclusive. 
Reprints  of  the  entire  series,  1715-1780,  edited  by  Dr. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


4  25 


Worthington  Chauncey  Ford,  are  now  being  published  by 
the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  at  the  charge  of  the 
William  Bradford  Homer  Dowse  Fund.  Volumes  I  to  IV, 
1715-1723,  have  already  been  issued. 

Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress  of  Massachusetts  in  1774- 
1775 ,  edited  by  William  Lincoln,  Boston,  1838. 

Barry,  J.  S.  History  of  Massachusetts ,  Boston,  1856.  3  vols. 

Belcher  Papers.  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections , 
Series  6,  VI,  VII. 

Channing,  Edward,  and  Archibald  Cary  Coolidge.  Barring¬ 
ton- Bernard  Correspondence ,  Cambridge,  1912. 

Cushing,  Harry  A.  History  of  the  Transition  from  Provincial 
to  Commonwealth  Government  in  Massachusetts ,  New  York, 
1896. 

Douglas,  Charles  H.  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts ,  New 
York,  1891-1892.  Columbia  Studies,  Vol.  I. 

D  uni  way,  C.  A.  Freedom  of  the  Press  in  Massachusetts ,  New 
York,  1906. 

Hutchinson,  Thomas.  History  of  the  Colony  {and  Province)  of 
Massachusetts  Bay ,  London  [1765],  1768,  1828.  3  vols. 

Kimball,  Everett.  The  Public  Life  of  Joseph  Dudley ,  New 
York,  1911. 

Lincoln,  Charles  H.  Correspondence  of  William  Shirley ,  New 
York,  1912.  2  vols. 

Mather,  Cotton.  Diary  of  Cotton  Mather ,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc., 
Coll.,  Series  7,  VII,  VIII. 

Mather,  Cotton.  Life  of  Sir  William  Phips ,  London,  1697. 

Mather,  Cotton.  Magnolia  Christi  Americana ,  Hartford,  1820. 
2  vols. 

Matthews,  Albert.  Essay  on  Colonel  Burgess ,  Colonial  Society 
of  Massachusetts,  Publications ,  XIV,  363-372. 

Minot,  G.  R.  Continuation  of  the  History  of  the  Province  of 
Massachusetts  Bay  from  the  Year  174-8  to  1765 ,  Boston,  1856. 
2  vols. 

Pownal,  Charles  A.  The  Life  of  Thomas  Pownal ,  London, 
1908. 

Sewall,  Samuel.  Diary  of  Samuel  Sewall ,  1674-1729 ,  3  vols., 
Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  Coll.,  Series  5,  V,  VII. 


426 


ROYAL  GOVERNORS 


Winsor,  Justin.  Memorial  History  of  Boston ,  Boston,  1880- 
1881.  4  vols. 

Wood,  George  Arthur.  Public  Life  of  William  Shirley ,  New 
York,  1920. 

New  Hampshire 

Documents  and  Records  Relating  to  the  Province  of  New  Hampshire , 
edited  by  Nathaniel  Bouton  and  others,  Concord,  etc.,  1867- 

1907,  Vols.  I- VII,  XVIII,  XIX,  usually  cited  as  Provincial 
Papers. 

Acts  and  Laws  of  His  Majesty's  Province  of  New  Hampshire  in 
New  England :  with  Sundry  Acts  of  Parliament ,  1696-1771 , 
edited  by  Albert  Stillman  Batchellor,  Vols.  I,  II. 

New  Hampshire  Historical  Society,  Collections ,  1824-1893.  10  vols. 
Proceedings ,  1872-1897,  3  vols. 

Adams,  Nathaniel.  Annals  of  Portsmouth ,  Portsmouth,  1825. 
Fry,  W.  H.  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province ,  New  York, 

1908. 

Mayo,  Lawrence  Shaw.  The  Life  of  John  Wentworth ,  New 
Haven,  1922. 

Robinson,  Maurice  H.  History  of  Taxation  in  New  Hampshire , 
New  York,  1904. 

Sanborn,  E.  D.  History  of  New  Hampshire ,  Manchester,  1875. 
Sanborn,  F.  B.  History  of  New  Hampshire ,  New  York,  1904. 

New  York 

Journal  of  the  Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Colony  of  New  York ,  1691-1765,  New  York,  1764-1766. 
2  vols. 

Journal  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Colony  of  New  York ,  1766- 
1776,  Albany,  1820.  9  books  bound  in  one. 

Documents  Relative  to  the  Colonial  History  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  edited  by  E.  B.  O’Callaghan  and  B.  Fernow,  Albany, 
1856-1887.  15  vols. 

New  York  Historical  Society,  Collections,  1811-1859.  9  vols. 

Publications,  Fund  Series,  1868-1893.  37  vols. 

Colden,  Cadwallader.  Papers,  New  York  Historical  Society, 
Coll.,  Series  2,  IX,  X  (1876-1877). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


427 


Brodhead,  J.  R.  History  of  the  State  of  New  York ,  New  York, 
1853,  1871.  2  vols. 

Jones,  Thomas.  History  of  New  York  during  the  Revolutionary 
War ,  and  of  the  Leading  Events  in  the  Other  Colonies  at  That 
Period ,  New  York,  1879.  2  vols. 

Keys,  Alice  Mapelsden.  Cadwallader  Colden ,  a  Representative 
Eighteenth  Century  Official ,  New  York,  1906. 

Schuyler,  Geo.  W.  Colonial  New  York ,  New  York,  1885.  2  vols. 

Spencer,  C.  W.  The  Cornbury  Legend ,  New  York  Hist.  Assoc., 
Proc.f  1914. 

Smith,  William.  The  History  of  the  Late  Province  of  New  York 
from  its  Discovery  to  1762 ,  New  York,  1829-1830.  2  vols. 

Wilson,  J.  G.  Memorial  History  of  the  City  of  New  York  from 
its  first  Settlement  to  the  year  1892 ,  New  York,  1892-1893. 
4  vols. 

New  Jersey 

New  Jersey  Historical  Society,  Collections ,  Newark,  1846-1872. 
7  vols. 

Papers  of  Lewis  Morris ,  New  Jersey  Hist.  Soc.,  Coll .,  Vol.  IV. 

Fisher,  Edgar  Jacob.  New  Jersey  as  a  Royal  Province ,  New 
York,  1911. 

Tanner,  Edwin  P.  The  Province  of  New  Jersey ,  1664-1738 , 
New  York,  1908. 


VITA. 


The  author  was  born  in  Albany,  New  York,  Dec.  2,  1895. 
After  completing  high  school  and  college  work  at  Villanova 
College,  receiving  in  1917  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts,  he 
was  ordained,  after  three  years  of  further  study,  to  the  priest¬ 
hood  in  the  Order  of  Hermits  of  St.  Augustine.  Graduate  studies 
in  the  Catholic  University  of  America  were  begun  in  the  fall  of 
1920,  and  consisted  of  courses  in  American  History,  in  the  History 
of  Education  and  in  Church  History. 


INDEX 


Acts,  resolves  as  substitute  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  71;  short  time,  as  weapon 
of  House  there,  77 ;  riders  as  weapon, 
111,  174;  right  to  repeal,  119;  of 
Parliament  as  Massachusetts  laws, 
170;  wording  of  enactment  clause  in 
Massachusetts,  202;  legality  of  enact¬ 
ment  after  death  of  King,  358;  right 
to  copies  in  New  Jersey,  381.  See  also 
Code. 

Adams,  J.  T.,  on  colonial  Governors,  19; 
on  Andros,  34,  34n.;  on  colonial  New 
Englanders,  35;  on  Cranfield,  24 5n., 
246. 

Adams,  John,  on  Shirley,  121;  rejected 
for  Council,  216;  delegate  to  Con¬ 
gress,  223n. 

Adams,  Samuel,  Commencement 
oration  on  resistance,  9;  Gazetteer 
and  Bernard,  Bernard  on,  176,  183, 
190;  and  salary  question,  205;  as 
chief  agitator,  208,  209;  and  removal 
of  General  Court,  209;  and  town 
memorials,  212;  and  movement  for 
union,  216;  and  salary  of  judges,  220; 
delegate  to  Congress,  223 n.;  excepted 
from  pardon,  240. 

Addison,  Joseph,  and  Wentworth,  257w. 

Addresses  to  Governor,  right  to  advance 
copy,  340-342. 

Adjournment,  Massachusetts  contro¬ 
versies  over  right,  60,  89,  118;  Ex¬ 
planatory  Charter  on,  72;  day  to 
day  in  New  Jersey,  386,  387. 

Administration  of  colonies,  English, 
fundamental  character,  25;  Bernard 
and  instability  of  policy,  168,  171, 
174;  character  in  New  Hampshire, 
251,  252;  effect  in  New  York,  303, 
304,  310,  320,  321;  Bedford’s  tighten¬ 
ing  policy,  338. 

Admiralty,  Massachusetts  House  and 
courts,  76;  fee  question,  156. 

Agent,  provincial,  of  Massachusetts  on 
salary  question,  84-87,  90,  93,  100; 
control  over,  118;  instructions  on  im¬ 
pending  Stamp  Act,  154;  appoint¬ 
ment  and  dismissal,  169,  170,  180; 


salary,  208,  262,  264;  first,  of  New 
Hampshire,  247 n.;  New  Hampshire, 
and  removal  of  Belcher,  262,  264;  of 
New  York,  House  controlled,  317,  369. 

Agitation,  generality,  popular  attitude, 
28,  29,  215;  Bernard’s  warning,  153; 
in  New  York,  369. 

Albany,  convention  (1748),  338. 

Allen,  Samuel,  as  Governor  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  land  claim,  251,  252, 
255. 

American  Revolution,  remoteness  of 
causes,  7,  30;  and  legality,  17;  con¬ 
tests  of  Governors  and  Assemblies  as 
education  for,  418,  421;  contests  and 
causes,  419-422.  See  also  Independ¬ 
ence. 

American  Whig,  anticipates  independ¬ 
ence,  370. 

Andros,  Sir  Edmund,  as  Governor  in 
Massachusetts,  33-35;  rule  in  New 
Hampshire,  251;  rule  in  New  York, 
287. 

Anglican  Church.  See  Established 
church. 

Anne,  Queen,  instructions  on  salary 
question,  46;  on  fort  at  Pemaquid, 
47;  and  charges  against  Dudley,  50; 
portrait  for  Massachusetts,  52;  and 
treasurer  in  New  York,  301. 

Appointive  power,  encroachment  by 
Assemblies,  26,  156;  House’s  method 
of  control  in  New  York,  328,  340. 

Appropriations,  specific,  as  weapon  of 
Assemblies,  26,  416,  417.  See  also 
Expenditures;  Salaries;  Supply  of 
treasury. 

Ashurst,  Sir  William,  and  Burges,  256n. 

Asia,  at  Boston,  227. 

Assemblies,  popular  status  in  quarrels 
with  Governors,  11;  looking  behind 
Governor  to  King,  11-13;  Parliament 
as  model,  12-14;  influence  of  political 
philosophy  and  environment,  14-16; 
as  protector  of  popular  liberties,  and 
legality,  16-18;  and  provincialism, 
18;  and  lack  of  legal  redress  against 
Governors,  22,  23;  and  instructions 


430 


INDEX 


to  Governors,  23;  chief  matters  of 
dispute:  finances,  salaries,  26;  equity 
courts,  27;  prorogations,  28;  paper 
money,  28,  417;  generality  of  agita¬ 
tion,  28,  29,  416;  courses  and  results 
of  conflicts,  29;  as  continuous  institu¬ 
tion,  63;  attainment  of  power  in 
Massachusetts,  148;  Albany  con¬ 
vention  on  (1748),  338;  New  York 
protest  against  suspension,  369; 
underlying  causes  of  contests  with 
Governors,  415;  methods  of  aggres¬ 
sion:  control  of  supply,  416,  417; 
specific  appropriations,  416,  417; 

audit  of  expenditures,  416,  417;  own 
treasurers,  416,  417;  Governor’s 

weapons  against,  416;  religious  and 
land  questions,  417;  success,  418; 
educational  value  of  contests,  418, 
421;  character  of  contests,  418-420; 
contests  and  causes  of  American 
Revolution,  419-422.  See  also  Acts; 
Addresses;  Adjournment;  Agent; 
Appointive  power;  Clerk;  Com¬ 
mittees;  Council;  Courts;  Defense; 
Dissolutions;  Elections;  Finances; 
Governors;  Independence;  Meeting 
place;  Military  powers;  Oath; 
Parliament;  Postponement;  Pro¬ 
rogations;  Provincial  Congress; 
Qualifications;  Speaker;  Suspending 
clause;  Suspension;  Veto;  and 
colonies  by  name. 

Assumption  of  civil  government,  in 
Massachusetts,  237,  239-242. 

Atkinson,  Theodore,  chief  justice,  27 5n.; 
Councillor,  27 6n. 

Attorney-General,  right  to  choose  in 
Massachusetts,  118. 

Audit.  See  Expenditures. 

Barefoote,  Walter,  as  executive  in  New 
Hampshire,  251. 

Barrington,  Lord,  on  avoiding  trouble, 
174. 

Bassett,  J.  S.,  on  legality  of  English 
attitude,  17. 

Batchellor,  A.  S.,  on  Cranfield,  246. 

Bedford,  Duke  of,  colonial  policy,  338. 

Belcher,  Jonathan,  on  insubordination 
of  Massachusetts,  9,  10;  on  Assembly 
and  instructions,  23;  on  general 
opposition  of  Assemblies,  29;  and 
appointment  of  Shute,  53,  256rc.;  as 
agent,  and  salary  question,  84,  87, 
100,  106-109;  rejected  for  Council, 
85,  95;  appointment  as  Governor, 


character,  94,  95,  119-121;  salary 
controversy,  and  temporary  grants, 
96-101,  122,  126;  allowance  and 
depreciated  currency,  100;  and  con¬ 
trol  over  expenditures,  101-110;  de¬ 
fense  question,  110;  paper  money, 
111-115,  118;  Land  Bank,  115-117; 
rejects  Councillors,  117;  on  his  dis¬ 
placement,  117;  minor  disputes,  118; 
spoils  system,  119;  results  of  ad¬ 
ministration  in  Massachusetts,  121; 
on  New  Hampshire  and  separate 
Governor,  253 n.;  New  Hampshire 
salary  question,  260;  and  salary  of 
Lieutenant-Governor  there,  260n.; 
and  supply  and  redemption  of  paper 
money  there,  261-265;  New  Hamp¬ 
shire  agent  and  efforts  for  removal, 
262,  264;  and  judging  elections  to 
House,  265;  and  boundary,  266;  re¬ 
sults  of  administration  in  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  267;  method  of  rule,  267w.; 
and  plot  against  Wentworth,  274w.; 
conciliatory  administration  in  New 
Jersey,  404,  405;  deficient  salary 
there,  405,  407;  and  land  troubles, 
406,  406n.;  and  intercameral  strife, 
407-409;  and  seat  of  Assembly,  408w. 

Belknap,  Jeremy,  on  Cranfield,  245n.; 
on  J.  Wentworth,  276. 

Bellomont,  Earl  of,  prosecution,  22; 
attitude  as  Governor  in  Massachu¬ 
setts,  39,  40;  and  defense,  40;  salary 
question,  pluralism,  40-42;  death, 
42,  299;  as  ruler  of  New  Hampshire, 
255;  on  Fletcher,  29 5n.;  administra¬ 
tion  of  New  York,  299. 

Bernard,  Sir  Francis,  on  value  of  New 
York  governorship,  21;  appointment 
to  Massachusetts,  expectations,  148; 
and  anti-prerogative  party,  149;  and 
enforcement  of  Sugar  Act,  149;  and 
public  affairs,  150;  contests  over 
emergency  military  appropriations, 
150-152,  162,  170,  171,  180;  warning 
against  agitation,  153;  and  census, 
153;  and  parliamentary  taxation, 
157;  and  Stamp  Act,  defense  of  con¬ 
duct,  156-165;  and  Stamp  Act  dis¬ 
turbances,  compensation  and  indem¬ 
nity,  158,  159,  163,  164,  167,  170; 
and  repeal  of  Stamp  Act,  165;  rejects 
Otis  as  speaker,  165;  general  hostility 
toward,  vindication,  165,  171,  173, 
176,  182-185,  188;  and  choice  of 
Councillors,  165-167,  174,  175,  180, 
186;  and  defense,  167;  resentment 


INDEX 


431 


and  apprehensions,  167-169,  177,  182; 
and  forfeitures,  169;  avoids  trouble, 
169,  170;  and  acts  of  Parliament  as 
Massachusetts  laws,  170;  and  in¬ 
stability  of  home  policy,  168,  171; 
salary,  169,  171,  189;  and  Hutchin¬ 
son’s  presence  in  House,  171;  and 
Newfoundland  proclamation,  172; 
and  riders,  174;  advises  colonial 
representation,  175;  and  circular 
letter,  175,  178;  home  correspondence 
incident,  175,  178,  185,  188,  190;  and 
calling  for  troops,  177,  181;  petitions 
for  removal,  articles,  179-181,  189; 
and  royal  appointment  of  Councillors, 
182,  184,  191;  avoids  convening  Gen¬ 
eral  Court,  and  irregular  meeting, 

182,  183,  190;  on  general  disloyalty, 

183,  184;  and  military  menace  of 
General  Court,  185-187;  last  session, 
itemized  legislative  needs,  187-190, 
193;  and  quartering,  190,  192;  final 
resolves  against,  190-192;  leaves, 
final  warning,  192,  194;  and  failure 
to  prorogue  General  Court,  193;  in¬ 
dictment,  195;  administration  in  New 
Jersey,  409. 

Bills  of  credit.  See  Paper  money. 

Blind  Tax  in  New  Jersey,  375,  379, 
380. 

Board  of  Trade,  on  independence 
tendencies  (c.  1720),  7,  8;  on  con¬ 
ditions  in  Massachusetts  (1723),  9,  10; 
on  Andros,  35;  and  salary  question, 
41,  45,  86,  97;  and  Burnet,  72 n.,  314; 
and  paper  money,  127;  on  Assembly 
and  military  powers,  145;  and  early 
New  Hampshire  government,  245; 
and  Cranfield,  249;  and  Wentworth, 
278 n.;  and  Governor  as  member  of 
Council,  320;  and  New  York  grants, 
348,  350;  and  prolonged  Assembly, 
385. 

Boone,  Thomas,  administration  in  New 
Jersey,  409. 

Borland,  John,  and  trade  charges,  50. 

Boston,  and  non-resident  representa¬ 
tives,  39;  Governors  ask  for  troops 
at,  71,  84,  158, 168;  impressment  riots, 
129-131;  and  quartering,  142,  144; 
instructions  to  representatives  (1770), 
198;  town  memorial,  212.  See  also 
next  titles,  and  Meeting  place. 

Boston  Massacre,  196. 

Boston  Port  Bill,  enforcement,  character 
of  required  submission,  222-224. 

Boston  Tea  Party,  219. 


Boundary,  Massachusetts-New  Hamp¬ 
shire  contest,  266;  New  York  contests, 
356. 

Bowdoin,  James,  delegate  to  Congress, 
223n. 

Boyne,  at  Boston,  227. 

Bradley,  Richard,  on  independence 
tendency  in  New  York,  326. 

British  Constitution,  colonial  interpre¬ 
tation,  15,  16. 

Brodhead,  J.  R.,  on  Cornbury,  300. 

Burges,  Elizeus,  and  governorship,  52, 
256. 

Burgoyne,  John,  ordered  on  colonial 
service,  230. 

Burlington,  N.  J.,  as  seat  of  Assembly, 
390. 

Burnaby,  Andrew,  on  trend  towards 
independence,  321. 

Burnet,  William,  character  as  Governor, 
24;  appointment  to  Massachusetts 
as  punishment,  72,  314;  instructions, 
76,  77;  salary  question,  77-91;  re¬ 
moval  of  General  Court  from  Boston, 
83;  asks  for  troops,  84;  turns  tables 
on  House,  85;  rejects  Belcher  for 
Council,  85,  95;  right  of  adjourn¬ 
ment,  89;  dies,  91;  payment  to 
heirs,  91,  93;  clearance  fees,  92;  other 
controversies,  92;  as  Governor  of 
New  Hampshire,  salary  there,  259; 
term,  260n.;  in  New  York,  and  de¬ 
ferred  election,  313;  as  chancellor, 
314;  and  Huguenots,  314;  loses 
popularity,  314;  in  New  Jersey,  and 
deferred  election  there,  385;  and 
proprietary  interests,  385;  salary 
contest  there,  386,  388;  day  by  day 
adjournments,  386,  387;  and  quali¬ 
fications  and  oath  of  representatives. 
386,  387;  tactless  attitude,  387. 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  adjournment  of 
General  Court  to,  protests,  60,  62, 
186,  196,  199-202,  204,  209,  210. 

Canadian  expedition,  of  1746,  Massa¬ 
chusetts  and,  129;  New  York  supply, 
333-335,  of  1711,  New  York  and, 
306;  New  Jersey  and,  383,  384. 

Cape  Breton  expedition.  See  Louisburg. 

Cartagena  expedition,  Massachusetts 
and,  129;  New  Hampshire  and,  265; 
New  York  and,  324;  New  Jersey  and, 
393. 

Castle  William,  garrison  desired,  71; 
controversy  over  repairs,  111,  119; 
force,  167;  support,  174. 


432 


INDEX 


Census  in  Massachusetts,  153. 

Chalmers,  George,  on  democratic  ten¬ 
dencies,  30;  on  Shute,  53;  on  naval 
stores  conflict,  54;  on  press  contro¬ 
versy,  56. 

Chancery  (equity),  controversies  over 
control,  27;  question  in  New  York, 
314,  317,  318. 

Channing,  Edward,  on  character  of 
Governors,  24;  on  Cornbury,  300. 

Charter  of  Massachusetts,  Explanatory, 
45,  71;  general  welfare  clause  as 
weapon,  75;  and  salary  controversies, 
80,  82,  88,  89;  and  right  of  adjourn¬ 
ment,  89;  and  control  over  expendi¬ 
tures,  104-106,  108,  109;  and  paper 
money,  113;  and  suspended  laws, 
116;  and  instructions,  201,  205,  207, 
222;  as  contract,  211;  and  Provincial 
Congress,  234-236;  and  assumption 
of  government,  241,  242. 

Circular  letter  of  Massachusetts  (1768), 
175. 

Clark,  John,  speaker,  58,  62. 

Clarke,  George,  right  to  rule,  321; 
grants  and  redemption  of  paper 
money,  322. 

Clearance,  fees,  controversy  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  92. 

Clerk  of  House,  contest  in  New  Jersey, 
379. 

Clinton,  George,  Governor  of  New  York, 
causes  of  contests,  policy  of  concilia¬ 
tion,  327;  military  supply  contest, 
recriminations,  328-338;  advises 
Crown  salary  for  Governors,  332; 
pays  war  expenses  out  of  private 
purse,  334;  refusal  to  deal  with 
House,  protests,  335-337,  343,  344; 
and  printing  of  documents,  337;  and 
paper  money,  337;  arraignment  of 
House,  337,  338;  Shirley’s  investi¬ 
gation  and  advice,  338,  339,  341;  re¬ 
sents  disrespect,  339;  right  to  ad¬ 
vance  copy  of  addresses  of  House, 
340-342;  futile  efforts  against  ag¬ 
gressions  of  House,  339,  341;  on 
completeness  of  House’s  control,  340, 
341;  demand  for  obedience  to  in¬ 
structions,  341-343;  and  unpaid 
public  debts,  341,  343;  House’s 

charges  against,  342,  347;  temporary 
harmony,  delayed  instructions,  344, 
345;  political  effect  of  administration, 
345;  popular  hostility,  346. 

Clinton,  Sir  Henry,  ordered  on  colonial 
service,  230. 


Code,  question  in  Massachusetts,  140; 
New  Hampshire  early,  244,  246n. 

Coercion  of  New  England  as  policy, 
227,  229. 

Colden,  Cadwallader,  as  executive,  24; 
period  of  administrations,  356;  po¬ 
sition  at  beginning,  356;  and  quotas, 
357 ;  and  legality  of  acts  passed  after 
death  of  King,  358;  and  judicial 
tenure,  358-362;  and  theatre,  359; 
and  Monckton,  360,  360n.,  362;  and 
fee  table,  360,  361;  and  land  grants, 
362;  intrigue  for  appointment,  363; 
and  parliamentary  taxation,  364; 
refusal  to  sign  home  addresses,  365; 
and  Stamp  Act  riots,  renewal  of  oath, 
refused  compensation,  365-368;  sal¬ 
ary,  366;  and  appeal  from  jury  ver¬ 
dict,  366;  published  refutation,  re¬ 
ception,  investigation,  reaction,  367, 
368,  370;  bargain  on  paper  money 
and  quartering,  370;  and  salary  for 
Dunmore,  371;  character,  372,  373; 
political  effect  of  administrations, 
373. 

Commander-in-chief,  transfer  of  power 
in  Massachusetts,  201;  taken  from 
colonial  Governors,  231. 

Committee  of  Correspondence,  Mas¬ 
sachusetts  standing,  instructions 
against,  216,  221;  New  Hampshire, 
281;  New  York,  369. 

Committees,  legislative,  outside  func¬ 
tions  in  Massachusetts,  118,  169; 
membership  in  New  Hampshire,  275. 

Connecticut,  subjugation  suggested, 
227,  229. 

Constables,  Cranfield  and  appoint¬ 
ment,  248. 

Continental  Congress,  call  by  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  223,  225;  and  government 
for  Massachusetts,  239-241;  New 
Hampshire  delegates,  282;  New  York 
and,  372;  New  Jersey  and,  412. 

Cooke,  Elisha  [1],  and  Phips,  38;  and 
Bellomont,  40;  and  appointment  of 
Dudley,  43. 

Cooke,  Elisha  [2],  and  naval  stores 
controversy,  54;  rejected  for  Council, 
54;  rejection  as  speaker,  56;  speaker 
pro  tem.,  64;  rejected  as  Indian  com¬ 
missioner,  65,  66. 

Cornbury,  Lord,  Governor  of  New 
York,  character,  300;  conflict  over 
supply,  question  of  embezzlement, 
300-303;  religious  persecution,  302; 
list  of  charges  against,  recall,  303; 


INDEX 


433 


political  effect  of  administration,  303; 
results  of  administration  in  New 
Jersey,  374,  382;  supply  and  land 
rights  contest  there,  374-378,  381; 
and  Blind  Tax,  375,  379,  380;  and 
contested  election,  376,  377,  380;  and 
clerk  of  House,  379;  grievances 
against,  answer,  rejoinder,  380,  381; 
and  audit  of  receiver-general’s  ac¬ 
counts,  381;  and  trial  upon  informa¬ 
tions,  382. 

Cosby,  William,  Morris  on,  21m.; 
Governor  of  New  York,  and  Sugar 
Act,  315;  first  grant,  loses  popularity, 
315;  and  Zenger  trial,  316,  317;  and 
agent,  317;  and  bills  of  credit,  317; 
chancery  dispute,  317,  318;  salary, 
317m.;  and  deferred  election,  318-320; 
as  member  of  Council,  320;  effect  of 
administration,  321;  death,  321; 
peaceful  administration  in  New 
Jersey,  389. 

Council  of  Massachusetts,  rejection  of 
appointments  to,  44,  54,  60,  64,  86, 
95,  117,  140,  165,  174,  178,  180,  186, 
199,  205,  216,  222;  relations  with 
Dudley,  44 m.;  declares  Dudley  de¬ 
posed,  52;  and  paper  money,  67,  75, 
76,  113;  and  control  over  expendi¬ 
tures,  67,  103,  105,  106;  quorum,  68; 
and  salary  question,  80,  91,  93;  and 
agents,  84,  85,  93;  and  supply  bills, 
111;  and  excise  bill,  132;  contest 
with  House,  156;  and  ignoring  of 
Stamp  Act,  165;  Bernard  and  choice 
after  Stamp  Act,  165;  and  acts  of 
Parliament  as  Massachusetts  laws, 
170;  and  military  appropriations, 
170,  171;  Bernard  and  appointments 
to,  173,  178,  180;  joins  popular  party, 
Bernard  and  royal  appointments, 
181,  182,  184,  191;  and  removal  to 
Cambridge,  200;  and  Boston  Tea 
Party,  219;  and  impeachment  of 
Oliver,  220;  Mandamus  Councillors, 
226-228,  237,  240;  and  assumption  of 
government,  241. 

Council  of  New  Hampshire,  and  Cran- 
field,  248;  as  instrument  of  Ports¬ 
mouth,  257;  as  Court  of  Appeal, 
259m.;  and  financial  controversy,  263, 
264;  as  Wentworth  family  affair, 
276;  and  salary  question,  279. 

Council  of  New  Jersey,  attitude  under 
Cornbury  and  Ingoldsby,  381,  383; 
strife  with  House,  384,  385,  407,  408; 
and  money  bills,  386;  and  control 


over  expenditures,  391;  and  fees  bill, 
395,  397;  and  militia  bill,  395,  397; 
chief  justice  as  member,  397;  and 
meeting  at  Trenton,  401,  402;  and 
paper  money,  402,  403. 

Council  of  New  York,  and  prerogative, 
287m.;  and  money  bills,  306,  307, 
349;  and  Zenger  trial,  316;  Governor 
as  member,  320;  deserts  Clinton,  340; 
vetoes  supply,  348;  Delancey  shifts 
responsibility  to,  349,  350;  and 

judicial  tenure,  362;  and  appeal  from 
jury  verdict,  366. 

Councils,  Franklin  on,  137. 

Counties,  controversy  in  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  274,  280. 

Courts,  Franklin  on  character  of  judges, 
19,  20;  complaints  on  Massachusetts, 
under  Dudley,  51;  payment  of 
judges’  salaries  in  Massachusetts,  im¬ 
peachment,  212,  214,  218;  authority 
to  establish  in  New  Hampshire,  249, 
250;  Court  of  Appeal  there,  259m.; 
new  counties  and  seats  there,  274-280; 
power  to  establish  in  New  York,  305, 
314,  317,  318;  judicial  tenure  and 
salaries  in  New  York,  358-362;  ap¬ 
peal  from  jury  verdict  in  New  York, 
366;  qualifications  of  jurors  in  New 
Jersey,  381;  trial  upon  informations 
there,  382;  New  Jersey  House  and 
appellate  jurisdiction,  394. 

Cranfield,  Edward,  Lieutenant-Gov¬ 
ernor  of  New  Hampshire,  245; 
character,  245m.,  246;  supply  contro¬ 
versy,  oppressions,  246-249;  and 
Cutt  Code,  247m.;  complaints  against, 
247w.;  appointment  of  constables  as 
revenge,  248;  attempt  to  levy  taxes, 
248,  249,  251;  and  establishment  of 
courts,  249,  250;  financial  gains, 
249n.;  leaves,  251. 

Customs  at  Boston,  fees  question,  156; 
question  of  income  tax  on  commis¬ 
sioners,  207,  208. 

Cutt,  John,  as  President  of  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  244,  245. 

Dartmouth,  Earl  of,  on  authority  of 
Parliament,  213;  and  Hutchinson, 
219;  and  coercion  of  Massachusetts, 
227,  229,  230;  on  Lexington  and 
Concord,  232. 

Defense,  appropriation  questions  in 
Massachusetts,  42,  110,  118,  167, 
174;  Franklin  on  colonial  attitude, 
136-138;  in  New  York,  328,  330; 


434 


INDEX 


bill  in  New  Jersey,  396,  398.  See  also 
Fortifications;  Military  power. 

De  la  Moy,  Peter,  and  accounts,  295. 

Delancey,  James,  and  Clinton’s  policy, 
327;  popularity  and  unpopular  in¬ 
structions,  policy,  346,  349-351;  and 
temporary  supply,  347,  348,  351; 
political  character,  352;  no  salary 
352n.;  second  term,  353,  356;  death, 
356. 

Democracy,  reasons  for  colonial  ten¬ 
dency,  30.  See  also  Independence. 

Dissolutions  of  Assembly,  Gage’s  order 
frustrated,  225;  complaint  in  New 
Hampshire,  247-249,  261,  265;  Went¬ 
worth’s  order  ignored,  281. 

Dongan,  Thomas,  and  Cranfield,  248; 
as  Governor  of  New  York,  286. 

Douglass,  William,  on  equity  courts,  27. 

Dover,  N.  H.,  independent  govern¬ 
ment,  244. 

Doyle,  J.  A.,  on  administration  of  New 
Hampshire,  24 5n. 

Dudley,  Joseph,  as  President  of  New 
England,  33;  unpopular  appointment 
as  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  char¬ 
acter,  42,  43,  44n.,  256;  rule  as 
formative  period,  43,  44,  52;  veto  of 
Councillors,  44;  relations  with  Coun¬ 
cil,  44 n.;  rejection  of  speaker,  45; 
salary  controversy,  45-47;  and  fort 
at  Pemaquid,  47;  and  House’s  ad¬ 
dress  to  Queen,  48 ;  efforts  to  supplant. 
Port  Royal  charges,  48,  49;  charges 
on  Nova  Scotia  trade,  49-51;  and 
naval  stores,  51;  other  conflicts,  51, 
52;  deposed,  reinstated,  death,  52; 
administration  in  New  Hampshire, 
salary  grant,  255. 

Dudley,  Paul,  rejected  by  Belcher,  118rc. 

Dummer,  Jeremiah,  and  Burges  and 
Shute,  53,  256n. 

Dummer,  William,  acting  Governor  of 
Massachusetts,  67,  72,  92;  salary 
question,  73,  92;  and  military  power, 
73;  and  appropriations,  73;  and 
paper  money,  74-76;  results  of  ad¬ 
ministration,  76. 

Dunbar,  David,  Lieutenant-Governor  of 
New  Hampshire,  258n. 

Dunmore,  Earl  of,  as  Governor  of  New 
York,  370;  salary  question,  371n. 

Elections,  Massachusetts  Convention 
and  frequent,  237,  239;  deferred,  in 
New  Hampshire,  258;  judging  for 
New  Hampshire  House,  265;  writs 


controversy  there,  272-274,  282-285; 
speaker  and  special  writs,  275;  de¬ 
ferred,  in  New  York,  313,  318-320; 
New  York  Septennial  Act,  313n.,  398; 
disputed,  in  New  Jersey,  376,  377, 
398;  deferred,  there,  384,  385; 

numerous  New  Jersey,  under  Morris, 
398. 

Elizabethtown,  N.  J.,  meeting  of  As¬ 
sembly,  408n. 

Equity.  See  Chancery. 

Established  church,  Fletcher’s  contest 
for,  in  New  York,  296,  297 ;  as  matter 
of  controversy,  417. 

Excise,  personal  liberty  and  Massachu¬ 
setts  bill,  132;  intercameral  contest 
there,  156. 

Exeter,  N.  H.,  independent  govern¬ 
ment,  244. 

Expenditures,  specific  appropriations  and 
audit  as  weapons  of  House,  26,  416, 
417;  early  claims  of  House  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  67,  68,  73;  Councils  and 
money  bills,  67,  103,  105,  106,  111, 
306,  307,  349,  386,  391;  controversy 
under  Burnet,  92;  under  Dummer, 
93;  under  Belcher,  audit  before  pay¬ 
ment,  101-110;  addresses  to  King, 
102,  107,  109;  House’s  appeal  to 
towns,  103,  104;  charter  rights,  104- 
106,  108,  109;  royal  instructions  on 
control,  109,  110;  for  defense,  110; 
Bernard’s  emergent  military  appro¬ 
priations,  150-152;  New  Hampshire 
House  and  control,  253;  New  York 
House  and  control,  Fletcher’s  mal¬ 
feasance,  293-298;  House  appoint¬ 
ment  of  treasurer,  effect  of  House’s 
control,  301,  324,  346/1.,  348;  Corn- 
bury  and  embezzlement,  lack  of 
proper  checks,  301,  302;  aggressive 
attitude  of  New  York  House,  304; 
struggle  under  Hunter,  final  victory 
of  House,  305-313;  under  Clinton, 
323-326,  340-343,  345;  Delancey’s 
instructions  against  specific  appro¬ 
priations,  ignored,  346,  347,  350,  351; 
control  of  military,  348;  control 
question  in  New  Jersey,  391,  394, 
407.  See  also  Salaries;  Supply  of 
treasury. 

Explanatory  Charter  of  Massachusetts 
on  speaker,  45;  cause,  provisions,  71. 

Fees,  legal,  in  New  York,  360,  361;  of 
representatives  in  New  Jersey,  381. 

Felton,  John,  arrest,  283. 


INDEX 


435 


Feme  covert,  bill  in  New  Jersey,  394, 
395ft.. 

Finances.  See  Expenditures;  Land 
Bank;  Paper  money;  Salaries; 
Supply;  Taxation;  Treasurer. 

Fletcher,  Benjamin,  Governor  of  New 
York,  character,  political  effect  of 
administration,  291,  298,  299;  and 
inquiry  into  colonial  debts,  292;  con¬ 
firms  privileges  of  House,  292;  and 
salary,  292;  contest  over  supply,  mal¬ 
feasance,  293-298;  and  control  over 
religious  establishment  and  appoint¬ 
ments,  296,  297;  land  grants,  298. 

Folsom,  Nathaniel,  delegate  to  Con¬ 
gress,  282ft. 

Foreign  coin,  regulation  in  Massachu¬ 
setts,  51. 

Forfeitures  on  vessels,  Bernard’s  sup¬ 
posed  interest,  169. 

Fort  Pownal,  reduction  of  garrison,  167; 
support,  174. 

Fort  William.  See  Castle  William. 

Fortifications,  Massachusetts  House  and 
frontier,  39,  40,  45,  47,  48,  110,  167; 
and  Castle  William,  71,  111,  119,  167, 
174.  See  also  Defense. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  on  colonial  Gov¬ 
ernors,  19,  20;  on  colonial  political 
attitude  (1754),  136-138;  Massachu¬ 
setts  agent,  203;  Hutchinson  Letters, 
215,  218;  on  his  son,  410. 

Franklin,  James,  press  censorship,  56ft. 

Franklin,  William,  character  as  Gov¬ 
ernor  of  New  Jersey,  409;  and  Stamp 
Act,  410;  and  quartering,  411;  and 
paper  money,  411;  and  robbery  of 
treasury,  412;  and  Provincial  Con¬ 
gresses,  412,  413;  arrest,  413. 

French  and  Indian  War,  trade  with  the 
enemy,  24;  Franklin  on  colonial 
attitude,  136-138;  quartering  ques¬ 
tions,  142-144;  Massachusetts  and 
quotas,  146;  and  Pownal’s  policy, 
146;  and  paper  money  in  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  271,  272;  New  York  supply, 
348,  350-356;  New  York  and  later 
quotas,  357. 

Frontier,  influence  on  attitude  of  As¬ 
semblies,  14-16. 

Gage,  Thomas,  and  troops  for  Boston, 
181,  187,  190;  Governor  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  instructions,  221,  222;  re¬ 
jects  Councillors,  322;  sustains  Port 
Bill,  225;  dissolution  orders  frus¬ 
trated,  225;  postpones  General  Court, 


225;  and  Mandamus  Councillors, 
227;  policy  and  inadequate  military 
support,  228-230;  and  Convention, 
exchange  of  accusations,  228,  233- 
237;  and  conciliatory  overtures,  231; 
and  policy  of  indemnity,  exceptions, 
231,  240;  authority  as  Governor  re¬ 
pudiated,  232,  238,  239,  242;  and 
election  of  representatives  (1775), 
237,  238;  excepted  from  pardon  by 
Massachusetts,  240. 

Gallery  for  public  in  Massachusetts 
House,  169. 

General  Court.  See  Massachusetts. 

General  welfare,  clause  in  Massachusetts 
charter  as  weapon  of  House,  75. 

George  I,  reinstates  Dudley,  52;  and 
prerogative,  53. 

George  II,  and  Massachusetts,  86;  and 
New  York  House,  348. 

Gove,  Edward,  revolt,  247ft. 

Governors,  character  of  colonial,  18-22; 
usurpations,  23;  good,  24;  Franklin 
on,  137;  under  assumption  of  gov¬ 
ernment  in  Massachusetts,  241.  See 
also  Assemblies;  Instructions;  Sal¬ 
aries;  and  Governors  and  colonies  by 
name. 

Grants.  See  Supply. 

Graves,  Samuel,  excepted  from  pardon 
by  Massachusetts,  240. 

Greene,  E.  B.,  on  good  Governors,  24; 
on  gradual  consciousness  of  diver¬ 
gencies,  30. 

Hamilton,  Andrew,  on  redress  against 
Governors,  22;  on  prorogations,  28. 

Hampton,  N.  H.,  independent  govern¬ 
ment,  244. 

Hancock,  John,  rejected  for  Council, 
186,  199,  205;  rejected  for  speaker 
pro  tern.,  198;  rejected  as  commissary- 
general,  204;  temporary  desertion, 
208;  approved  as  speaker  pro  tern., 
209;  presides  over  Provincial  Con¬ 
gress,  225,  237;  delegate  to  Conti¬ 
nental  Congress,  223ft.;  excepted  from 
pardon,  240. 

Hardy,  Sir  Charles,  appointment  as 
Governor  of  New  York,  353;  in¬ 
structions  and  grants,  353-356; 
leaves,  356. 

Hardy,  Josiah,  administration  in  New 
Jersey,  409;  cause  of  removal,  409ft. 

Harvard  College,  Shute  and,  65.  See 
also  Cambridge. 

Hillsborough,  Earl  of,  Bernard  corre- 


436 


INDEX 


spondence,  178,  190;  on  Massachu¬ 
setts  income  tax  on  Crown  officers,  208. 

House  of  Representatives.  See  As¬ 
semblies,  and  colonies  by  name. 

Howe,  Sir  William,  ordered  on  colonial 
service,  230. 

Huguenots,  naturalization  in  New  York, 
31  In.;  Burnet  and,  314. 

Hunter,  Robert,  character  as  Gov¬ 
ernor,  24,  312;  task  as  Governor  of 
New  York,  aggressiveness  of  House, 
304;  instructions,  304;  supply  con¬ 
test,  305-313;  and  Canadian  expe¬ 
dition,  306;  and  establishment  of 
courts,  307;  and  naturalization  bill, 
311,  312;  policy  as  Governor  of  New 
Jersey,  384,  385. 

Huske,  Ellis,  chief  justice,  27 5n. 

Hutchinson,  Thomas,  character  as  Gov¬ 
ernor,  24;  on  Andros’s  government, 
34;  on  Phips,  38w.;  on  Dudley,  42, 
50n.;  Lieutenant-Governor,  antago¬ 
nism  toward,  149;  decision  in  Sugar 
Act  fees  case,  150;  writs  of  assistance 
case,  152;  Stamp  Act  riots,  158;  and 
petition  to  King  on  Stamp  Act,  158n.; 
dropped  from  Council,  165-167; 
presence  in  House,  171;  and  bargain 
on  Council,  173;  acting  Governor, 
knowledge  of  affairs,  194;  position, 
195;  unpropitious  events,  195;  and 
prorogations,  196,  208;  instructions 
and  meetings  at  Cambridge,  196, 
199-202,  204,  209,  210;  suppression 
of  disorders,  197,  198;  and  quartering, 
198;  salary  question,  198,  204-207, 
210;  rejects  speaker,  198,  209;  and 
governorship,  acceptance,  198,  204; 
rejects  Councillors,  199,  205,  215; 
and  transfer  of  power  of  commander- 
in-chief,  201;  and  wording  of  enact¬ 
ment  clause,  203;  attempts  at  con¬ 
ciliation,  203,  205,  206;  and  naval 
stores,  206;  and  income  tax  on  Crown 
officers,  207;  veto  of  agents’  salaries, 
208;  Thanksgiving  proclamation, 
209;  on  loyalty,  210;  on  theory  of 
charter,  211;  on  town  memorials, 
213;  on  authority  of  Parliament, 
213;  salary  and  impeachment  of 
judges,  214,  220;  Hutchinson  Letters, 
215-218,  and  Committee  of  Corre¬ 
spondence,  216;  removal  asked,  218; 
considered  overzealous,  219;  and 
Boston  Tea  Party,  219;  superseded, 
221;  convention  at  Albany,  338. 

Hutchinson  Letters,  215-218. 


Imperialism,  and  frontier  forts,  47. 

Impressment,  Boston  riots,  129-131; 
New  York  and  military,  357. 

Independence,  early  accusations  of  de¬ 
sire,  7,  8;  evidences,  24;  as  to  justi¬ 
fication,  25;  causes  of  development, 
gradual  growth,  29-31;  assertion  of 
House’s  paramount  rights  as  prelude, 
58;  Massachusetts  accused  of  desire 
(1729-33),  86,  109;  significance  of 
impressment  riots,  130;  Bernard’s 
accusation  of  desire,  180;  as  funda¬ 
mental  question  in  Massachusetts 
(1769),  194;  S.  Adams’s  hint,  209; 
Dartmouth  on  purpose,  227;  Hunter 
insinuates  desire,  307;  trend  in  New 
York,  321;  and  House’s  control  over 
expenditures,  324,  326,  345,417;  pre¬ 
dicted  (1769),  370;  development  of 
philosophy  of,  and  strife  with  Gov¬ 
ernors,  415,  417.  See  also  American 
Revolution. 

Indians,  and  Andros’s  government,  34n.; 
Massachusetts  controversies  over 
measures  against,  57,  65;  Massachu¬ 
setts  and  war  (1764),  156. 

Informations,  New  Jersey  trials  upon, 
382. 

Ingoldsby,  Richard,  as  executive  in 
New  York,  304;  in  New  Jersey,  383, 
384. 

Instructions  to  Governors,  attitude  of 
Assemblies  toward,  23;  and  charter 
rights,  disregard  in  Massachusetts,  80, 
82,  88,  89,  99,  104,  105,  113,  121; 
right  to  know  reasons,  202,  216;  New 
York  House  and  obeying,  309,  310, 
341-343.  See  also  Governors  by 
name. 

Iroquois,  Massachusetts  commissioners 
to,  65. 

Isle  of  Shoals,  Wentworth’s  proclama¬ 
tion  from,  285w. 

James  II,  colonial  policy,  33;  and  New 
York,  286. 

Jennings,  Samuel,  speaker,  378. 

Joffrey,  George,  Councillor,  277 n. 

Judges.  See  Courts. 

Jury,  appeal  from  verdict,  366;  qualifi¬ 
cations  in  New  Jersey,  381. 

Justices  of  the  peace,  and  election  of 
loan  officer  in  New  Jersey,  398. 

Kalm,  Peter,  on  trend  toward  inde¬ 
pendence,  321. 

Keyes,  A.  M.,  on  Colden,  373. 


INDEX 


437 


Kimball,  Everett,  on  Dudley’s  un¬ 
popularity,  44  n. 

King,  colonial  attitude  toward,  11-13. 
See  also  Administration;  Independ¬ 
ence;  Instructions . 

King  George’s  War,  and  Massachusetts 
paper  money,  128;  Canadian  expe¬ 
dition,  129,  333-335;  quartering,  133; 
supply  question  in  New  York,  328- 
338;  New  Jersey  and  preparation, 
396,  399,  400n.,  402.  See  also  Louis- 
burg. 

King  William’s  War,  military  expendi¬ 
tures  in  New  York,  293. 

Kirke,  Percy,  and  governorship,  42w. 

Land  Bank  controversy,  115-117,  122, 
129. 

Land  grants.  Mason  claim  and  New 
Hampshire  government,  245,  252, 
255;  B.  Wentworth  and,  275; 
Fletcher’s,  in  New  York,  298;  bound¬ 
aries  and  division  there,  362;  as 
matter  of  controversy,  417.  See  also 
Proprietary  interests. 

Laws.  See  Acts. 

Legality  in  Revolutionary  struggle,  17. 

Leisler,  Jacob,  revolt  and  rule,  287,  288. 

Lexington,  Mass.,  on  royal  instruc¬ 
tions,  23. 

Lexington  and  Concord,  battle  of,  and 
rebellion,  232. 

Lincoln,  Mass.,  and  representation,  132. 

Livingston,  William,  on  colonial  con¬ 
ditions,  llw. 

Livius,  Peter,  Councillor,  277 n.;  and 
Wentworth,  278w. 

Loudoun,  Earl  of,  on  Pownal,  141;  and 
quartering,  142. 

Louisburg  expedition,  Massachusetts 
and,  129;  New  Hampshire  and,  270, 
271;  New  Jersey  and,  399,  402. 

Lovelace,  Lord,  Governor  of  New  York, 
303,  304;  in  New  Jersey,  383. 

Lynne,  N.  H.,  writ  of  election  question, 
282n. 

Mandamus  Councillors  in  Massachu¬ 
setts,  226-228,  237,  240. 

Marblehead,  Mass.,  town  memorial, 

212w. 

Martyn,  Richard,  and  Council,  24 6n. 

Mason,  John,  land  claim  and  royal 
government,  245,  252,  255. 

Massachusetts,  early  law  against  taxa¬ 
tion  without  representation,  7;  ac¬ 
cused  of  desire  for  independence 


(1722),  8;  Belcher  on  insubordina¬ 
tion,  9,  11;  Board  of  Trade  on  con¬ 
ditions  (1723),  9,  10;  population, 
militia,  and  navigation  then,  10;  and 
salary  payments  by  Crown,  27 ;  under 
Andros,  33-35;  failure  at  self-govern¬ 
ment,  35;  new  charter,  provisions, 
36;  appointment  of  Phips,  36,  37;  his 
contests,  37,  38;  charges  against  him. 
House  and  removal,  38,  39;  resi¬ 
dential  qualification  for  House,  39; 
under  Stoughton,  39,  42;  first  royal 
vetoes,  39;  Pemaquid  Fort  contro¬ 
versies,  39,  40,  45,  47,  53,  118,  129; 
Bellomont’s  attitude,  harmony,  his 
salary  and  pluralism,  39-42;  neglect 
of  defense,  42,  110,  118,  167,  174; 
Dudley’s  appointment  and  character, 
42,  43,  44 n.;  his  administration  as 
formative  period,  43,  44,  52;  re¬ 
jection  of  Councillors,  44,  54,  60,  64, 
86,  95,  117,  140,  165,  174,  178,  180, 
186,  199,  205,  216,  222;  rejection  of 
speakers,  45,  56-59,  62,  72,  118,  165, 
198;  Dudley’s  salary  controversy, 
45-47;  suppression  of  House’s  ad¬ 
dress  to  Queen,  48;  and  fort  at  Ports¬ 
mouth,  48;  charges  against  Dudley, 
48-51;  question  of  naval  stores,  51, 
54-56,  206;  other  conflicts  with 
Dudley,  51;  Queen  Anne’s  portrait, 
52;  deposition  of  Dudley,  52;  ap¬ 
pointment  of  Shute,  his  provocative 
instructions,  52,  53;  freedom  of  the 
press,  54-56;  salary  question  under 
Shute,  57-59,  68-70;  priority  of 
allowances  or  legislation,  59,  73,  80, 
87;  right  of  adjournment,  60,  72,  89 
118;  House’s  memorial  to  King  on 
Shute’s  address,  61,  63;  removal  of 
General  Court  from  Boston,  protests, 
60,  62-64,  83,  85,  186,  196,  199,  200- 
202,  204,  209,  210,  222;  Indian  ques¬ 
tions  under  Shute,  64-66;  encroach¬ 
ments  on  Governor’s  military  powers, 
65,  66,  73,  129,  144-146;  Shute 
leaves,  66;  Shute  and  paper  money, 
67,  74;  control  over  expenditures, 
67,  68,  73,  92,  93,  101-110;  Parlia¬ 
ment  and  salary  question,  70,  86,  87, 
90,  107;  Shute’s  faults,  70;  resolves 
and  short-time  acts,  71,  77;  Gov¬ 
ernors  and  regular  troops  for  Boston, 
71,  84,  158,  168,  177,  181;  Explana¬ 
tory  Charter,  71;  results  of  strife 
under  Shute,  72;  appointment  of 
Burnet,  72;  under  Dummer,  72-76, 


438 


INDEX 


92;  salary  of  acting  Governor,  73, 
92,  140;  allowances  and  paper  money 
issues,  75,  76;  popular  advance  under 
Dummer,  76;  interference  with  Ad¬ 
miralty  Courts,  76;  Burnet’s  instruc¬ 
tions,  76,  77;  salary  question  under 
him,  77-91;  salary  question  and 
charter  rights,  80,  82,  88,  89,  99,  100; 
salary  memorial  to  King,  agents  and 
their  advice,  their  fund,  83-87,  90,  93; 
warrants  for  salaries  in  House  held 
up,  85;  death  of  Burnet,  payment  to 
his  heirs,  91,  93;  clearance  fees,  92; 
other  controversies  with  Burnet,  92; 
appointment  of  Belcher,  his  charac¬ 
ter,  94,  95,  119-121;  his  instructions 
on  salary,  96,  97;  his  salary  contest, 
97-101;  temporary  salary  grants  ac¬ 
cepted,  99,  100,  122;  expenditure 
controversy  under  Belcher,  101-110; 
address  to  King  on  expenditures,  102, 
107,  109;  expenditure  control  and 
charter  rights,  104-106,  108,  109; 
paper  money  under  Belcher,  limita¬ 
tion  of  issues,  111-115,  118;  Land 
Bank,  115-117,  122,  129;  appoint¬ 
ment  and  character  of  Shirley,  117, 
118,  121;  Belcher’s  minor  disputes, 
118;  new  towns  and  representation, 
118,  131,  132,  140,  169;  his  use  of 
patronage,  119;  political  results  of 
his  administration,  121;  popularity 
and  success  of  Shirley,  121,  133-136; 
his  salary  grants  and  depreciation  of 
currency,  123-126;  summary  of  salary 
controversies,  126;  paper  money 
issues  under  Shirley,  war  needs,  127, 
128;  House  and  military  affairs  under 
him,  impressment  riots,  129-131; 
Shirley  and  the  excise  measure,  132; 
Shirley  and  Pownal  and  quartering, 
133,  142-144;  under  Spencer  Phips, 
problem  of  supply,  other  questions, 
138-140;  appointment  of  Pownal,  his 
problem,  140-142;  influence  of  ab¬ 
sence  of  Governor,  141;  and  Pitt’s 
war  policy,  quotas,  146;  war  time  and 
Pownal’s  policy,  146;  regret  at  his 
transfer,  146,  147;  powerful  position 
of  House,  148,  169;  Bernard’s  ap¬ 
pointment  and  expectations,  148;  his 
struggle  with  anti-prerogative  party, 
149;  Sugar  Act  fees  case,  149; 
Bernard’s  emergent  military  appro¬ 
priations,  150-152,  162,  170,  171,  180; 
writs  of  assistance  case,  152,  153; 
Bernard’s  warning  against  agitation. 


153;  census  as  warning  (1763),  153; 
and  renewal  of  Sugar  Act,  154; 
House’s  separate  instructions  to 
agent  on  impending  Stamp  Act, 
154-156;  contests  with  Council,  156; 
grants  to  person  instead  of  to  office, 
156;  and  Indian  war  (1764),  156; 
House  and  Stamp  Act,  156,  158-165; 
House  and  Stamp  Act  Congress,  157; 
Stamp  Act  riots,  compensation,  158, 
159,  163,  164,  166,  167,  170;  House 
demands  opening  of  courts,  165; 
Bernard  and  repeal  of  Stamp  Act, 
165;  Bernard  and  choice  of  Council¬ 
lors,  Hutchinson,  165,  174,  178,  180; 
Bernard’s  resentment  and  appre¬ 
hensions,  167-169,  177,  182-185; 

Bernard  and  instability  of  English 
policy,  168,  171,  174;  appointment 
and  dismissal  of  agent,  169,  170,  180; 
Bernard  avoids  trouble,  169,  170,  181; 
acts  of  Parliament  as  Massachusetts 
laws,  170;  general  hostility  toward 
Bernard,  171,  173,  176,  183,  188,  194; 
Hutchinson’s  presence  in  the  House, 
171 ;  proclamations  of  another  colony, 
172;  attempted  bargain  on  Council¬ 
lors,  173;  riders,  veto  of  items,  174; 
circular  letter  (1768),  question  of  re- 
cission,  175,  178;  Shelburne’s  cen¬ 
sure,  175;  Bernard’s  home  correspond¬ 
ence,  176,  185,  188,  190;  celebration 
of  anniversary  of  Stamp  Act  repeal, 
177;  and  Townshend  Acts,  179,  190, 
192;  petitions  for  Bernard’s  removal, 
articles,  179-181,  189;  proposed  royal 
appointment  of  Councillors,  182,  184, 
191;  Bernard  avoids  calling  General 
Court,  irregular  meetings,  182,  183, 
190;  evidences  of  general  disloyalty, 
183,  184;  House  and  military  menace 
of  Court  House,  185-187;  Bernard’s 
final  session,  185-193;  refusal  to  pro¬ 
vide  quartering,  187,  190,  192,  198; 
Bernard’s  specific  requests  for  legis¬ 
lation,  188-190;  refusal  of  salary 
to  him,  189;  final  resolves  against 
him,  190-192;  his  departure  and 
final  warning,  192;  fundamental  prob¬ 
lem,  194;  Hutchinson’s  equipment 
and  position  as  acting  Governor, 
194;  protests  on  prorogations,  196, 
205,  208,  221;  responsibility  for  dis¬ 
orders,  197;  protests  on  troops,  197; 
Hutchinson  and  governorship,  ap¬ 
pointment,  198,  204;  transfer  of 
powers  of  commander-in-chief,  201; 


INDEX 


439 


wording  of  enactment  clause,  202; 
colonial  Committee  of  Correspond¬ 
ence,  203,  216,  221;  preparedness  of 
militia,  203;  Hutchinson’s  attempt 
at  conciliation,  203,  205,  206;  accept¬ 
ance  of  Crown  salaries,  impeachment 
of  judges,  204-207,  210,  214,  220, 
221  n.;  income  tax  on  Crown  officers, 
207,  208;  salaries  of  agents,  208; 
Adams  carries  on,  208,  209;  Hutchin¬ 
son’s  Thanksgiving  proclamation, 
209;  town  memorials,  212;  authority 
of  Parliament,  213;  Hutchinson 
Letters,  215-218;  popular  attitude 
toward  agitation,  215;  movement  for 
union,  216;  Virginia  Resolves,  216; 
removal  of  Hutchinson  asked,  218; 
ministry’s  disapproval  of  his  zeal, 
219;  Boston  Tea  Party,  Governor’s 
helplessness,  219;  Gage’s  appoint¬ 
ment  and  instructions,  221;  Boston 
Port  Bill,  General  Court  at  Salem, 
222-224;  and  Continental  Congress, 
223,  225;  culminative  expression  of 
grievances,  224;  non-importation, 
224;  Gage  postpones  General  Court, 
Convention  organized.  Convention  on 
right  of  postponement,  225,  226; 
Mandamus  Councillors,  226-228,  237, 
240;  policy  of  coercion,  227,  229; 
Gage  and  inadequate  military  force, 
228-230;  disarmament  of  people  sug¬ 
gested,  228;  character  and  status  of 
Provincial  Congress,  and  Gage,  228, 
232-236,  240;  and  conciliatory  over¬ 
tures,  230;  proposed  indemnity,  ex¬ 
ceptions,  231,  240;  effect  of  Lex¬ 
ington  and  Concord,  232;  repudiation 
of  Gage’s  authority  as  Governor,  232, 
238,  239,  242;  Provincial  Congress  and 
military  preparations,  234,  236-238; 
assumption  of  civil  government, 
status,  237,  239-242;  Congress  and 
frequent  elections,  237,  239;  second 
Congress,  237 ;  Gage  and  regular 
election  (1775),  237,  238;  counter  to 
Gage’s  pardon  proclamations,  240; 
independent  General  Court,  anomaly, 
242;  and  union  with  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  253;  New  Hampshire  bound¬ 
ary,  266;  New  York  boundary,  356; 
character  of  contests  with  Governors, 
419,  420. 

Massachusetts  Gazette ,  and  Bernard,  176, 
183. 

Mather,  Cotton,  on  appointment  of 
Phips,  37. 


Mather,  Increase,  charges  against  An¬ 
dros,  35;  and  new  charter,  36;  and 
appointment  of  Phips,  37. 

Mauduit,  Jasper,  letter  from  House  on 
Stamp  Act,  154. 

May  hew,  Jonathan,  on  protection  of 
rights,  153. 

Meeting  place  of  Assembly,  contro¬ 
versies  in  Massachusetts,  60,  62-64, 
83,  85,  186,  196,  199-202,  204,  209, 
210,  222;  in  New  Jersey,  390,  400, 
401,  408rc. 

Military  powers,  encroachment  by  As¬ 
semblies,  26,  65,  66,  73;  under  Shir¬ 
ley,  129;  Pownal  and  House’s  aggres¬ 
sion,  144-146;  Bernard’s  emergent 
appropriations,  150-152,  162,  170, 
171;  transfer  in  Massachusetts,  201; 
general  transfer  from  colonial  Gov¬ 
ernors,  231.  See  also  Defense;  Militia; 
Standing  army;  and  wars  by  name. 

Militia,  Massachusetts  (1723),  10; 

preparedness  there,  203,  234,  236- 
238;  New  Jersey  bill,  382,  383,  393, 
395,  397. 

Monckton,  Robert,  and  Colden  and 
judicial  tenure,  360,  360w.,  361;  re¬ 
turn,  364. 

Montgomerie,  John,  as  Governor  of 
New  York,  314;  administration  in 
New  Jersey,  388,  389;  death,  389. 

Moody,  Joshua,  and  Cranfield,  247 n. 

Moore,  Sir  Henry,  popular  policy  as 
Governor  of  New  York,  366;  and 
compensation  for  Colden,  367;  and 
protest  against  suspension  of  Assem¬ 
blies,  369;  and  agent,  369;  death, 
370. 

Morris,  Lewis,  on  colonial  Governors, 
21w.;  and  Cosby,  21n.;  character  as 
Governor,  24;  on  generality  of  dis¬ 
putes,  29;  on  Cornbury,  303;  and 
proprietary  interests.  Councillor,  378; 
appointment  as  Governor  of  New 
Jersey,  position,  390;  controversy 
over  supply,  391-394,  396,  397,  399, 
400,  402-404;  and  Cartagena  expe¬ 
dition,  393;  on  soft  policy,  393;  and 
feme  covert  bill,  394;  and  legal  fees 
bill,  394,  395,  397 ;  and  paper  money, 

394,  396,  400,  402,  403;  and  House’s 
attempt  at  appellate  jurisdiction,  394; 
bargain  on  supply  and  legislation, 
394;  and  militia  bill,  395,  397;  and  at¬ 
tempt  to  nullify  suspending  clause, 

395,  397;  and  nepotistic  pluralism, 
397;  and  contested  election,  398;  on 


440 


INDEX 


danger  in  aggression  of  House,  398, 
403;  tirades,  399;  effect  of  character 
on  relations,  399,  401;  and  blame  for 
failure  of  supply,  399,  400;  and  place 
of  meeting,  400-402;  and  anti-pro¬ 
prietary  disturbances,  400;  death, 
404;  political  effect  of  administra¬ 
tion,  404. 

Mutiny  Act,  Massachusetts  House  on, 
192. 

Nanfan,  John,  as  executive,  299n. 

Natick,  Mass.,  and  representation,  132. 

Naturalization  bill  in  New  York,  311. 

Naval  stores,  conflicts  in  Massachusetts, 
51,  54-56,  206. 

Navigation,  Massachusetts  (1723),  10. 

Nepotism,  Wentworth,  276. 

New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts  and 
separation,  47;  independent  Gov¬ 
ernor,  117w.,  268;  beginning  as  royal 
province,  Cutt  as  President,  244,  245; 
nativity  of  executives,  244;  beginning 
of  House,  244;  Cutt  Code,  244,  24 Qn.; 
land  claims  and  government,  245, 
252,  255,  417;  appointment  of  Cran- 
field,  245;  his  character,  24 5n.,  246; 
supply  controversy  under  him,  dis¬ 
solutions,  246-249;  Gove’s  revolt, 
247n.;  complaints  against  Cranfield, 
247w.;  his  appointment  of  constables, 
248;  his  attempt  to  levy  taxes,  248, 
249,  251;  piracy  act,  249;  power  to 
establish  courts,  249,  250;  Barefoote 
as  executive,  251;  Andros’s  rule 
without  House,  251;  restoration  of 
House,  251;  character  of  English  ad¬ 
ministration,  251,  252;  period  of  local 
self-government,  25  In.;  Usher  as 
executive,  252;  supply  and  salary 
controversy  under  him,  252-254;  de¬ 
sire  for  reunion  with  Massachusetts, 
253;  House  and  application  of  appro¬ 
priations,  253;  under  jurisdiction  of 
Massachusetts  Governor,  253n.;  re¬ 
moval  of  Usher,  254,  255;  period  of 
harmony,  255;  permanent  grant  to 
Dudley,  255 ;  under  Vaughan,  perma¬ 
nent  salary  refused,  256;  Shute’s 
Council  as  Portsmouth  instrument, 
257;  paper  money  under  Shute,  257; 
deferred  election,  complaint,  258; 
J.  Wentworth  as  executive,  258;  re¬ 
jection  of  speaker,  258,  259,  273; 
Burnet  and  salary,  259;  Court  of 
Appeal  question,  259 n.;  Belcher’s 
salary  conflict,  depreciated  currency, 


260;  Belcher  and  redemption  of 
paper  money,  poverty,  war  burden, 
deadlock,  261-265;  frequent  dissolu¬ 
tions  by  Belcher,  261,  265;  agent’s 
salary  and  work  for  removal  of 
Belcher,  262;  Belcher  and  judging 
elections  to  House,  265;  boundary 
question,  266;  Belcher’s  character 
and  political  results  of  administration, 
267;  appointment  of  B.  Wentworth, 
Wentworth  dynasty,  267,  276; 

harmony  under  him,  268;  his  salary 
question,  268-270;  paper  money 
under  him,  war  issues,  270-272;  writs 
of  election  controversy,  272-274,  282- 
285;  county  division  and  court  seats, 
274,  280;  writ  for  special  election, 
275;  membership  of  legislative  com¬ 
mittees,  275;  encroachment  on  mili¬ 
tary  powers  of  Governor,  275;  Went¬ 
worth’s  land  grabbing,  permitted 
resignation,  275,  276;  conditions 

favoring  administration  of  J.  Went¬ 
worth  [2],  276;  his  nepotism  and 
favoritism,  276;  his  popularity  and 
worth  considered,  277,  278,  285;  his 
salary  controversy,  278,  279,  28 On.; 
Committee  of  Correspondence  and 
rupture  with  Governor,  281;  House 
meeting  after  dissolution,  delegates 
to  Continental  Congress,  281;  post¬ 
ponement  of  Assembly,  282;  and 
reconciliation,  282-284;  seizure  of 
provision  ships,  282;  attack  on  fort 
at  Portsmouth,  282n.;  arrest  at  Gov¬ 
ernor’s  house,  283;  Wentworth’s 
flight,  283n.,  284,  285;  his  proclama¬ 
tion  of  prorogation  from  Isle  of  Shoals, 
28 5n.;  character  of  contests  with 
Governors,  418. 

New  Jersey,  political  results  of  Corn- 
bury’s  administration,  374,  382; 

Cornbury’s  supply  and  proprietary 
interests  conflict,  374-378,  381,  382; 
Blind  Tax,  375,  379,  380;  precedence 
of  legislation  or  supply,  376,  397, 
399,  402,  404;  disputed  elections, 
376,  377,  380,  398;  clerk  of  House, 
379;  remonstrance  to  Cornbury, 
grievances,  graft,  380,  381;  accounts 
of  receiver-general,  381;  right  to 
copy  of  laws,  381;  trials  upon  infor¬ 
mations,  382;  militia  act,  382,  383, 
393,  395,  397,  404;  Lovelace’s  ad¬ 
ministration,  383;  Ingoldsby’s  policy, 
383;  and  Canadian  expedition  (1711), 
383,  384;  Hunter’s  policy,  harmoni- 


INDEX 


441 


ous  results,  intercameral  strife,  384, 
385;  Burnet  and  deferred  election, 
385;  Burnet  and  proprietary  inter¬ 
ests,  385;  his  salary  contest,  386,  388; 
day  to  day  adjournments,  386,  387; 
Council  and  money  bills,  386;  quali¬ 
fications  and  oaths  of  representatives, 
386,  387;  effect  of  Burnet’s  tactless 
attitude,  387;  later  harmony  under 
Burnet,  388;  joint  governorship  as 
cause  of  harmony,  388,  389;  Mont¬ 
gomerie’s  administration,  388,  389; 
separation  from  New  York  governor¬ 
ship,  388-390;  Cosby’s  peaceful  ad¬ 
ministration,  389;  Morris’s  appoint¬ 
ment  and  position,  390;  seats  of 
Assembly,  390,  400-402,  408n.;  ad¬ 
vance  in  power  of  House,  Morris  on 
it,  390,  398,  403;  supply  controversy 
under  Morris,  391-394,  396,  397, 
399,  400,  402-404;  control  over  ex¬ 
penditures,  391,  394,  407;  and 

Cartagena  expedition,  393;  Morris 
on  uses  of  soft  policy,  393;  feme 
covert  bill,  394,  39 5n.;  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  deeds,  394;  legal  fees  con¬ 
test,  suspending  clause,  394,  395, 
397;  paper  money,  394,  396,  400, 
402,  403,  411;  House’s  effort  for  ap¬ 
pellate  jurisdiction,  394;  Morris’s 
barter  on  supply,  394;  and  King 
George’s  War,  396,  398,  399,  400n.; 
House  on  parliamentary  prohibition 
of  paper  money,  396;  pluralism  of 
Morris’s  son,  397;  justices  of  the 
peace  and  election  of  loan  officers, 
398;  short-lived  Assemblies  under 
Morris,  398,  403;  his  tirades,  House’s 
replies,  blame  for  failure  of  supply, 
399,  400-402;  effect  of  Morris’s  char¬ 
acter,  399;  anti-proprietary  disturb¬ 
ances,  400,  406;  advance  of  House 
during  Morris’s  administration,  404; 
Belcher’s  conciliatory  administration, 
404,  405;  his  deficient  salary,  405, 
407;  Belcher  and  intercameral  strife, 
407-409;  Bernard,  Boone,  Hardy, 
409;  Franklin’s  character  as  Gov¬ 
ernor,  409;  Stamp  Act  affairs,  410; 
quartering,  411;  robbery  of  provin¬ 
cial  treasury,  412;  Provincial  Con¬ 
gress  and  Franklin,  412,  413;  arrest 
of  Franklin,  413;  proprietary  rights 
and  contests,  417;  character  of  con¬ 
tests  with  Governors,  418. 

New  York,  Bernard  on  value  of  gov¬ 
ernorship,  21;  and  Bellomont’s  plu¬ 


ralism,  41;  Dongan’s  rule  with  and 
without  House,  286;  and  Andros, 
287;  causes  of  Leisler  revolt,  287; 
appointment  of  Sloughter,  provision 
for  House,  288;  declaration  against 
Dongan’s  acts  and  permanent  sup¬ 
port,  288;  declaration  of  right  of 
representation,  288;  salary  dispute 
under  Sloughter,  poverty,  289; 
Sloughter’s  neglect  of  public  busi¬ 
ness,  289,  290;  precedence  of  supply 
or  legislation,  290,  325,  326,  359, 
361,  393;  political  precedents  from 
Sloughter’s  administration,  290,  291; 
Fletcher’s  character,  political  effect 
of  administration,  291,  298,  299; 
House  and  inquiry  into  public  debts, 
292;  confirmation  of  privileges  of 
House,  292;  Fletcher’s  salary  grant, 
292;  his  contest  over  supply,  mal¬ 
feasance  in  military  finances,  293- 
298;  conflict  over  religious  establish¬ 
ment  and  appointments,  296,  297; 
Fletcher’s  land  grants,  298;  Bello¬ 
mont’s  administration,  299;  factions 
in  House,  299,  300;  character  of 
Cornbury,  300;  Cornbury’s  supply, 
300,  301,  303;  House  and  own  treas¬ 
urer,  301,  324,  346n.,  348;  Cornbury 
and  embezzlement,  301,  302;  lack  of 
checks  on  expenditures,  302;  list  of 
grievances  against  Cornbury,  his 
recall,  303;  political  effect  of  his  ad¬ 
ministration,  303,  304;  Hunter’s 

task,  aggression  of  House,  304;  power 
to  establish  courts,  chancery,  305, 
307,  314,  317,  318;  sole  power  to  tax, 
305;  Hunter’s  contest  over  control  of 
finances,  victory  of  House,  305-313; 
supply  for  Canadian  expedition 
(1711),  306;  Council  and  money  bills, 
306,  307,  349;  grant  to  Hunter  (1712), 
308;  accountability  of  receiver-gen¬ 
eral,  310;  naturalization  act,  311, 
312;  Hunter’s  character,  312;  ap¬ 
pointment  of  Burnet,  313;  deferred 
elections,  313,  318-320;  Septennial 
Act,  313w.,  398;  Burnet’s  loss  of 
popularity  and  transfer,  314;  Mont¬ 
gomerie’s  peaceful  administration, 
314;  Cosby’s  first  grant  and  loss  of 
popularity,  315;  Zenger  trial,  politi¬ 
cal  phase,  316,  317;  agent  question, 
317;  bills  of  credit  under  Cosby,  317; 
Governor  as  member  of  Council,  320; 
effect  of  administrations  to  1736,  320, 
321;  succession  on  Cosby’s  death. 


442 


INDEX 


321 ;  Clarke’s  annual  supply  and 
redemption  of  paper  money,  322-327 ; 
House’s  control  over  expenditures, 
323-326,  340-343,  345;  underlying 
causes  of  Clinton’s  contests,  327; 
Clinton  and  paper  money,  328,  337; 
Clinton  and  military  supply,  recrim¬ 
inations,  328-338;  House’s  method  of 
control  over  appointive  power,  328, 
340;  and  Canadian  expedition  (1746), 
333-335;  Clinton’s  refusal  to  deal 
with  House,  deadlock,  335-337,  343, 
344;  dispute  over  printing  docu¬ 
ments,  337;  points  of  Clinton’s  ar¬ 
raignment,  House’s  unofficial  reply, 
337,  338;  Shirley’s  diagnosis  of 

troubles,  338,  339;  Clinton’s  futile 
efforts  against  “innovations”,  339, 
341;  his  resentment  of  disrespect, 
339;  Governor’s  demand  for  advance 
copy  of  addresses  to  him,  340-342; 
Clinton  on  completeness  of  House’s 
control,  340,  341;  House  and  obedi¬ 
ence  to  royal  instructions,  341-343; 
unpaid  debts,  responsibility,  341,  343; 
charges  against  Clinton,  342,  347; 
temporary  harmony  due  to  delayed 
instructions,  344,  345;  effect  of  Clin¬ 
ton’s  administration,  345;  Osborne’s 
arrival,  instructions,  and  suicide, 
345,  346;  House’s  right  to  inspect 
treasury  accounts,  346n.;  Delancey’s 
popularity,  unpopular  instructions, 
and  policy,  346,  349-351;  House  and 
instructions  for  permanent  supply, 
royal  reprimand,  347,  348,  350,  351; 
supply  for  French  and  Indian  War, 

348,  350-352,  354-356;  Delancey 
shifts  responsibility  onto  Council, 

349,  350;  and  prohibition  of  legal 
tender,  350,  351;  Delancey  and  sal¬ 
ary,  352 n.;  Delancey’s  second  term, 
353,  356;  appointment  of  Hardy,  in¬ 
structions,  temporary  grants  allowed, 
353,  355;  Hardy  and  permanent 
revenue,  353;  controversies  over 
boundaries,  356;  Hardy  leaves,  356; 
Colden’s  position  at  beginning  of  ad¬ 
ministration,  356;  later  French  and 
Indian  War  quotas,  357;  legality  of 
acts  passed  after  death  of  King,  358; 
judicial  tenure  and  salary  contest, 
358-362;  Colden’s  theatrical  permit, 
359;  fee  table,  360,  361;  land  grant 
boundaries  and  division,  362;  House 
and  agent,  363,  369;  protest  on  Sugar 
Act  and  parliamentary  taxation. 


Colden  and  addresses,  364,  365; 
Stamp  Act  riots,  Colden  and  com¬ 
pensation,  365-368;  Colden’s  renewal 
of  oath,  365;  Moore’s  popular  policy, 
366;  appeal  from  jury  verdict,  366; 
Colden’s  published  refutation,  investi¬ 
gation,  reaction,  367,  368,  370;  pro¬ 
test  of  House  against  parliamentary 
suspension  of  Assemblies,  369;  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Correspondence,  369;  paper 
money  and  quartering  bargain,  370, 
371;  Dunmore,  question  of  salary, 
370;  Tryon’s  rule,  371;  conservatism, 
371;  government  seized  by  revolu¬ 
tionists,  372;  Colden’s  character,  in¬ 
fluence  of  his  administrations,  372, 
373;  separation  of  New  Jersey  gov¬ 
ernorship,  388-390;  character  of 
contests  with  Governors,  419. 

Newcastle,  Duke  of,  on  Massachusetts, 
71;  colonial  policy,  338. 

Newfoundland,  proclamation  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  172. 

Nicholson,  Sir  Francis,  and  Leisler’s  re¬ 
volt,  288;  Lieutenant-Governor,  288. 

Non-importation,  suspension  of  Assem¬ 
blies  for  supporting,  protest,  369. 

Nova  Scotia,  charges  against  Dudley 
concerning  trade,  49-51;  Shirley’s 
recommendations  on  government, 
135. 

Oath  of  representatives,  question  in 
New  Jersey,  386. 

Oliver,  Andrew,  letters,  217 «.,  21 8n.; 
removal  as  Lieutenant-Governor 
asked,  218;  convention  at  Albany, 
338. 

Oliver,  Peter,  chief  justice,  salary  ques¬ 
tion,  impeachment  charges,  220,  221w. 

Osborne,  Daniel,  arrival  as  Governor, 
instructions,  suicide,  345,  346. 

Osgood,  H.  L.,  on  Dudley,  256. 

Otis,  James,  as  opposition  leader,  150; 
writs  of  assistance  case,  152;  expres¬ 
sion  of  loyalty,  153;  letter  to  Mau- 
duit  on  Stamp  Act,  154;  Stamp  Act 
Congress,  161;  rejected  as  speaker 
and  as  Councillor,  165,  178,  186; 
lessens  activity,  174;  and  Gazette, 
176;  and  reception  of  Gov.  Went¬ 
worth,  188;  insane,  208. 

Oxford,  N.  H.,  writ  of  election  question, 
282n. 

Paine,  R.  T.,  delegate  to  Congress,  223n. 

Paper  money,  as  frontier  measure,  16; 


INDEX 


443 


as  source  of  controversy,  28,  417; 
controversies  in  Massachusetts:  under 
Shute,  suspending  clause,  67,  112; 
under  Dumrner,  interpretation  of 
limiting  instructions,  74;  and  decline 
of  Massachusetts,  90;  depreciation 
and  salaries,  100;  under  Belcher, 
limitation,  111-115;  address  to  King, 
appeal  to  Parliament,  113;  redemp¬ 
tion  question,  114,  128;  issues  under 
Shirley,  war  needs,  127,  128;  gradual 
discontinuance,  129,  139;  contro¬ 

versy  in  New  Hampshire:  under 
Shute,  257 ;  depreciation  and  salaries, 
260,  269;  struggle  for  redemption, 
261-265;  B.  Wentworth  and  war 
issues,  270-272;  New  York  contro¬ 
versies:  under  Cosby,  317;  redemp¬ 
tion,  322;  for  King  George’s  War, 
328,  337;  and  prohibition  of  legal 
tender,  350,  351;  for  French  and 
Indian  War,  354n.;  quartering  act 
bargain,  370,  371;  New  Jersey  con¬ 
troversies:  early,  394,  396;  House  on 
parliamentary  prohibition,  396;  Gov¬ 
ernor  Franklin  and,  411. 

Parliament,  influence  of  development 
on  colonial  sentiment,  12,  323,  344; 
legality  of  attitude  toward  colonies, 
17;  and  colonial  salary  controversy, 
70,  86,  87,  90,  107;  and  paper  money, 
111-114;  Bernard  and  authority  to 
tax  colonies,  157;  acts  as  Massachu¬ 
setts  laws,  170;  Massachusetts  dis¬ 
cussion  of  authority,  213;  declaration 
of  colonial  authority,  229;  overtures, 
230;  suspension  of  colonial  Assemblies, 
369;  New  Jersey  House  on  paper 
money  prohibition  as  encroachment, 
396.  See  also  Stamp  Act. 

Partridge,  William,  as  executive  of  New 
Hampshire,  254,  255. 

Patronage,  Belcher’s  use,  119;  Went¬ 
worth  dynasty  in  New  Hampshire, 
267,  276n. 

Pemaquid,  contest  over  fort  at,  39,  40, 
45,47,53,118,129. 

Penobscot  Indians,  negotiations,  57 ; 
measures  against,  65,  140. 

Personal  liberty,  and  excise  in  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  132. 

Perth  Amboy,  N.  J.,  as  seat  of  Assem¬ 
bly,  390. 

Phips,  Spencer,  as  acting  Governor, 
problem  of  supply,  133n.,  138-140; 
salary,  140;  other  difficulties,  140. 

Phips,  Sir  William,  prosecution,  23; 


appointment  as  Governor  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  36,  37;  career,  3 6n.;  salary 
controversy,  37;  other  conflicts,  38; 
charges  against,  38;  House  and  re¬ 
moval,  38;  and  residential  qualifica¬ 
tion,  39. 

Pierce,  Daniel,  Councillor,  277 n. 

Piracy,  New  Hampshire  act  on,  249. 

Pitt,  William,  war  policy,  146,  357. 

Plymouth,  Mass.,  town  memorial, 
212n. 

Plymouth,  N.  H.,  writ  of  election  ques¬ 
tion,  282 n. 

Political  theory,  colonial,  14,  15. 

Pontiac  Conspiracy,  Massachusetts  and, 
156. 

Population,  of  Massachusetts  (1723),  10. 

Port  Royal,  charges  against  Dudley,  49. 

Portsmouth,  N.  H.,  Massachusetts  and 
fort  at,  48;  independent  government, 
244;  control  over  Council,  257;  and 
popularity  of  J.  Wentworth,  277; 
flight  of  Loyalists,  282;  attack  on 
fort,  282. 

Postponement  of  meeting,  of  General 
Court,  right,  225;  of  New  Hampshire 
Assembly,  282. 

Pownal,  John,  agency,  and  Colden’s 
appointment,  363. 

Pownal,  Thomas,  appointment  as  Gov¬ 
ernor  of  Massachusetts,  problems, 
140-142;  and  assertion  of  preroga¬ 
tive,  141;  salary  grants,  142;  and 
quartering,  142-144;  and  military 
power,  144-146;  and  quotas,  146; 
policy,  146;  transfer  to  South  Caro¬ 
lina,  regret,  146,  147. 

Pratt,  Benjamin,  and  New  York  chief 
justiceship,  361,  362. 

Press,  controversy  in  Massachusetts 
over  official  publications,  54-56;  li¬ 
bellous  pamphlets,  61;  Zenger  trial, 
316,  317;  Clinton’s  contest  in  New 
York,  337. 

Privy  Council,  on  control  over  expendi¬ 
tures  in  Massachusetts,  109.  See  also 
Board  of  Trade. 

Proprietary  interests  in  New  Jersey, 
contest  under  Cornbury,  374-378, 
381;  Ingoldsby  and,  383;  and  Burnet, 
385;  disturbances,  400,  406;  as  mat¬ 
ter  of  controversy,  417. 

Prorogations,  as  source  of  controversy, 
28;  protests  in  Massachusetts,  196, 
205,  208,  221. 

Provincial  Congress  of  Massachusetts, 
organization  of  first,  225,  226;  work, 


444 


INDEX 


228,  237;  status,  and  Gage  as  Gov¬ 
ernor,  229,  232-236,  247;  military 
preparation,  234,  236-238;  takes 

over  financial  control,  236;  and  for¬ 
mal  assumption  of  civil  government, 
237,  239-242;  policy  of  frequent 
elections,  237,  239;  election  and 
meeting  of  second,  237;  and  regular 
annual  election,  237,  238;  repudiates 
authority  of  Gage,  238,  239;  meeting 
of  third,  240. 

Provincial  Congress  of  New  Jersey,  and 
Governor  Franklin,  412-414. 

Provincialism,  influence,  18. 

Public  debts,  responsibility  for  unpaid, 
in  New  York,  292,  341,  343.  See  also 
Paper  money. 

Quakers  in  New  Jersey,  and  Blind  Tax, 
375;  and  Canadian  expedition  (1711), 
384;  and  militia  act,  396. 

Qualifications  of  representatives,  resi¬ 
dential  in  Massachusetts,  39;  judging 
there,  180;  question  in  New  Jersey, 
386,  387. 

Quartering  of  troops,  Shirley’s  conflict 
with  Massachusetts  House,  133; 
Pownal  and,  142;  general  opposition, 
183;  House  refuses  to  provide  (1769), 
187,  190,  192;  Hutchinson  and,  198; 
question  in  New  York,  370;  in  New 
Jersey,  411. 

Queen  Anne’s  War,  fort  at  Pemaquid, 
47;  Port  Royal,  49;  Dudley  and 
trade  with  the  enemy,  49-51;  Cana¬ 
dian  expedition,  306,  383,  384. 

Quorum  of  Council  in  Massachusetts, 68. 

Randolph, Edward,  on  Gove’s  revolt,  247. 

Rebellion,  Dartmouth  on  existence,  232. 

Receiver-general,  accountable  to  New 
York  House,  310;  audit  of  accounts 
in  New  Jersey,  381. 

Reconciliation,  English  overtures 
(1775),  230-232;  indemnity  for  Mas¬ 
sachusetts,  exceptions,  231,  240;  ef¬ 
forts  in  New  Hampshire,  282-284. 

Religious  freedom,  extent  in  New  York, 
296n. 

Removal  of  Assembly.  See  Meeting 
place. 

Repeal  of  acts,  right,  119. 

Representation,  Massachusetts  contest 
over  new  towns  and  increase,  118, 
131,  132,  135,  140,  169;  New  York 
declaration  of  right,  288.  See  also 
Taxation. 


Residence  for  Governor,  question  in 
Massachusetts,  41. 

Residential  qualification  for  Massachu¬ 
setts  House,  39. 

Resolves,  as  weapon  of  Massachusetts 
House,  71. 

Rhode  Island,  subjugation  advised,  227, 
228. 

Riders,  as  weapon  of  House,  111; 
Bernard  and,  174. 

Rights  of  Englishmen,  Assemblies  and, 
13;  and  salary  controversy,  46,  79; 
and  independence,  321;  change  in 
colonial  concept,  414. 

Rindge,  Daniel,  Councillor,  276w. 

Robinson,  M.  H.,  on  early  taxation 
without  representation,  251. 

Rockingham,  Marquis  of,  and  J.  Went¬ 
worth,  276,  278 n. 

Rogers,  Daniel,  Councillor,  277 n. 

Roman  Catholics  in  colonial  New  York, 
296n. 

Roxbury,  Mass.,  town  memorial,  212w. 

Salaries,  controversies  between  Gov¬ 
ernors  and  Assemblies,  26;  Crown 
payment,  27,  69,  204-207,  210,  218, 
332;  controversies  in  Massachusetts: 
first,  under  Phips,  37;  “presents”  to 
Bellomont,  his  pluralism,  40-42; 
Board  of  Trade’s  demands,  41,  45,  86; 
Dudley’s  controversy,  45-47;  royal 
orders  for  fixed,  arguments  against, 
46;  as  pressure  on  Shute,  57;  priority 
of  allowances  or  legislation,  59,  73, 
80,  87;  House’s  control  under  Shute, 
68,  69;  during  absence,  69,  125,  126; 
modification  of  requirement,  perma¬ 
nent  dropped,  69;  and  action  by 
Parliament,  70,  86,  87,  90,  107;  of 
acting  Governor,  73,  92,  140;  and 
paper  money  issues,  75,  76;  Burnet’s 
instructions,  77,  86,  87;  his  contro¬ 
versy,  78-91;  and  charter  rights,  80, 
82,  88,  89,  100;  House’s  appeal  to 
towns,  basis  of  contention,  81-83; 
memorial  to  King,  agents  and  their 
advice,  83-87,  90,  93,  100;  Belcher’s 
instructions,  96,  97;  his  controversy, 
97-101,  122;  acceptance  of  tempo¬ 
rary  grants  allowed,  99,  100,  123; 
Shirley’s  temporary  grants  and  depre¬ 
ciated  currency,  123-126;  summary 
of  controversy,  126;  Pownal’s  grants, 
142;  grants  to  persons  rather  than 
to  office,  156,  328;  Bernard’s,  169, 
171,  189;  controversy  in  New 


INDEX 


445 


Hampshire:  under  Cranfield,  246- 
249;  under  Usher,  252-254;  perma¬ 
nent  grant  to  Dudley,  255;  perma¬ 
nent,  refused  Vaughan  and  Shute, 
256,  257;  Burnet  and  fixed,  259; 
Belcher’s  controversy,  depreciated 
currency,  260;  Lieutenant-Governor, 
260 n.;  under  B.  Wentworth,  268- 
270;  of  J.  Wentworth,  278,  279;  con¬ 
troversies  in  New  York:  declaration 
against  permanent  support,  288; 
contest  under  Sloughter,  biennial 
grant,  289,  290;  five-year  provision 
for  Fletcher,  292;  Cosby’s,  317n.; 
reduction  as  weapon  of  House,  322, 
323;  Delancey  and,  352 n.;  judicial, 
358-362;  Colden’s  and  Dunmore’s, 
366,  371;  controversies  in  New  Jer¬ 
sey:  Cornbury’s,  375-378,  381;  Bur¬ 
net’s,  386,  388;  Belcher’s  deficient, 
405,  407.  See  also  Supply. 

Salaries  of  representatives  in  Massachu¬ 
setts,  85,  118. 

Salem,  removals  of  General  Court  to,  83, 
85,  222;  town  memorial,  212 n.;  Pro¬ 
vincial  Convention,  225;  military 
dispersion  of  meeting,  236. 

Saratoga,  massacre  at,  331. 

Scarborough  at  Portsmouth,  282,  283 n. 

Septennial  Act  in  New  York,  313 n.,  398. 

Sewall,  Samuel,  and  Dudley,  4 5n.,  50; 
sage  advice,  72. 

Sharpe,  Horatio,  as  Governor,  24. 

Shelburne,  Earl  of,  and  Massachusetts, 
175. 

Shirley,  William,  appointment  as  Gov¬ 
ernor  of  Massachusetts,  117,  118; 
character,  121;  popularity  and  suc¬ 
cess,  reason,  121,  133,  136;  on  his 
problems,  122;  and  salary,  depreci¬ 
ated  currency,  123-126;  and  paper 
money,  127,  129;  and  House  in  mili¬ 
tary  matters,  129;  other  contro¬ 
versial  affairs,  129;  and  impressment 
riots,  129-131;  and  representation, 
131,  132,  135;  and  excise,  132;  and 
quartering,  133;  Catholic  wife,  133; 
inferential  troubles,  134,  135;  and 
parliamentary  taxation,  136;  ab¬ 
sences,  effect,  141;  diagnosis  of  New 
York  troubles,  338,  339;  aid  from 
New  Jersey,  399,  402. 

Shute,  Samuel,  appointment  as  Gov¬ 
ernor  of  Massachusetts,  53;  charac¬ 
ter,  53;  instructions,  consequent  con¬ 
troversies,  53;  naval  stores  question, 
and  control  of  press,  54-56;  rejection 


of  Councillors,  54,  60,  64;  rejections 
of  speaker,  56-59,  62,  72;  salary 
question,  57-59,  68-70;  priority  of 
allowance  or  legislation,  59;  and 
right  of  adjournment,  60,  72;  House’s 
memorial  to  King  on,  61,  63;  and 
removal  to  Cambridge,  62,  64;  bick¬ 
erings,  64,  66,  70;  and  Indian 

trouble,  64-66;  and  House’s  en¬ 
croachment  on  military  powers,  65, 
66;  leaves,  66;  and  paper  money, 
67,  112;  faults,  70;  political  results 
of  controversies,  70,  72;  unpopular¬ 
ity,  desires  troops,  71;  not  reap¬ 
pointed,  72;  salary  question  in  New 
Hampshire,  257;  and  Council  there, 
257;  and  paper  money  there,  257; 
and  Vaughan,  257 n. 

Sloughter,  Henry,  appointment  as  Gov¬ 
ernor  of  New  York,  reception,  288, 
289;  salary  question,  neglect  of  gov¬ 
ernment,  289,  290;  political  influence 
of  administration,  290;  death,  291. 

Smith,  William,  and  Colden,  370. 

Somerset  at  Boston,  227. 

Sovereignty,  colonial  theories,  15. 

Speaker,  in  Massachusetts,  rejection  by 
Governors,  45;  56-59,  62,  118,  165, 
198;  Explanatory  Charter  on,  72; 
right  to  veto  choice  in  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  258,  259,  273;  and  writ  of 
special  election  there,  275. 

Spencer,  C.  W.,  on  Cornbury,  300. 

Spotswood,  Alexander,  as  Governor,  24. 

Stamp  Act,  and  Bernard  and  Massa¬ 
chusetts  House,  Bernard’s  self-defense, 
156-163;  disturbances  at  Boston, 
compensation,  158,  159,  163,  164, 
166,  167,  170;  business  results  of 
nullification,  opening  of  courts  de¬ 
manded,  163,  165;  Bernard  and 

repeal,  165;  contest  and  choice  of 
Councillors,  165-167;  Bernard’s  ap¬ 
prehensions  after  contest,  167-169; 
celebration  of  anniversary  of  repeal, 
177;  New  York  riots,  reparation, 
365-368;  in  New  Jersey,  410. 

Stamp  Act  Congress,  calling,  157. 

Standing  army.  Governors’  requests  for 
troops  at  Boston,  71,  84,  158,  168, 
177,  181;  support  of  troops  at  Bos¬ 
ton,  170,  171;  House  and  menace  to 
Court  House  by,  185-187;  protest  on 
presence,  197;  efforts  to  re-enforce  at 
Boston,  227,  230,  232;  indictment  by 
Provincial  Congress,  235.  See  also 
Quartering. 


446 


INDEX 


Stoughton,  William,  as  acting  Governor, 
39,  42. 

Sugar  Act,  Bernard  and  fees  case,  149; 
writs  of  assistance,  152;  efforts 
against  renewal,  154;  Cosby  and, 
315. 

Sullivan,  John,  delegate  to  Congress, 

282 ft. 

Supply  of  the  treasury,  control  as 
weapon  of  House,  26,  416,  417;  pre¬ 
cedence  over  legislation,  59,  73,  80, 
87,  290,  325,  326,  359,  361,  376,  393, 
397,  399,  402,  404;  problem  of  meth¬ 
od  in  Massachusetts  under  Spencer 
Phips,  138-140;  New  Hampshire 
controversy  under  Cranfield,  246- 
249;  under  Usher,  252-254;  New 
York  contest  under  Fletcher,  293- 
298;  under  Cornbury,  300,  301,  303; 
under  Hunter,  305-313;  under  Clarke, 
one-year  grants,  322-327;  Clinton’s 
instructions  to  regain  control,  327; 
Clinton  and  military  supply,  328- 
338;  Clinton  on  completeness  of 
House’s  control,  340,  341;  House  and 
royal  instructions,  341-343,  346-348, 
350;  New  York  and  precedent  and 
practice  in  other  colonies,  350,  353; 
instructions  permitting  temporary 
grants,  353,  355;  conflict  in  New 
Jersey  under  Morris,  391-394,  396, 
397,  399,  400,  402-404.  See  also 
Expenditures;  Paper  money;  Sala¬ 
ries;  Taxation. 

Suspending  clause,  on  paper  money  bills 
in  Massachusetts,  67,  112;  attempt  to 
nullify  in  New  Jersey,  395,  397. 

Suspension  of  Assemblies,  New  York 
protest,  369.  See  also  Dissolutions; 
Elections;  Postponements;  Proroga¬ 
tions. 

Tailer,  William,  as  acting  Governor  of 
Massachusetts,  52,  92. 

Taxation,  early  Massachusetts  law 
against,  without  representation,  7 ; 
Shirley  and  parliamentary,  136; 
Franklin  on  parliamentary  (1754), 
137;  Massachusetts  House  on  repre¬ 
sentation  and,  154,  155,  160,  161; 
Bernard  and  parliamentary,  157; 
Bernard  advises  colonial  representa¬ 
tion,  175;  colonial  income  tax  on 
Crown  officers,  207,  208;  Massa¬ 
chusetts  Provincial  Congress  takes 
charge,  236;  Cranfield’s  attempt 
without  representation  in  New 


Hampshire,  248,  249,  251;  power  in 
New  York,  305.  See  also  Excise; 
Finances. 

Thanksgiving  proclamation,  ignoring  of 
Hutchinson’s,  209. 

Theatre,  Colden’s  permit,  359. 

Tonnage.  See  Clearance. 

Towns,  appeal  of  Massachusetts  House 
to,  81-83,  103,  104;  new,  and  increase 
in  representation,  118,  131,  132,  135, 
140,  169;  memorials,  212. 

Townshend  Acts,  protest  of  Massachu¬ 
setts  House,  179,  190,  192. 

Trade  with  the  enemy,  during  French 
and  Indian  War,  24;  charges  against 
Dudley,  49-51. 

Treasurer,  House  appointment  in  New 
York,  301,  324,  346ft.,  348;  as  weapon 
of  House,  416,  417. 

Treasury,  robbery  in  New  Jersey,  412. 
See  also  Supply. 

Trenton,  Assembly  at,  400,  401. 

Trial  over  seas,  Dudley’s  practice,  51. 

Tryon,  William,  as  Governor  of  New 
York,  371. 

Union,  Massachusetts  resolves  (1773), 
216;  day  of  thanksgiving  for,  234. 
See  also  Continental  Congress. 

Usher,  John,  as  executive  of  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  character,  252;  supply  and  sal¬ 
ary  controversy,  252-254;  and  con¬ 
trol  over  expenditures,  254;  removal, 
254,  255;  reappointment,  255. 

Van  Dam,  Rip,  as  executive  of  New 
York,  299ft.;  and  succession  to 
Cosby,  321. 

Vaughan,  George,  as  executive  of  New 
Hampshire,  salary  question,  256; 
rights  as  Lieutenant-Governor,  sus¬ 
pended,  257  ft. 

Vaughan,  William,  on  Cranfield,  246, 
247ft. 

Vetch,  Samuel,  and  trade  charges,  50. 

Veto,  first  royal,  of  Massachusetts  acts, 
39;  short-time  acts  as  hindrance  to 
royal,  77 ;  Phips  on  right  of  Governor, 
140;  of  items,  174.  See  also  Suspend¬ 
ing  clause. 

Virginia  resolves,  Massachusetts  and, 
216. 

Waldron,  Richard  [1],  as  executive  of 
New  Hampshire,  245;  Councillor, 
246  ft. 


INDEX 


447 


Waldron,  Richard  [3],  and  Belcher, 
267 n.;  speakership  and  B.  Went¬ 
worth,  273 n.,  274. 

Walpole,  Horatio,  and  Burnet,  72 n. 

Warner,  Daniel,  Councillor,  277 n. 

Warner,  Jonathan,  Councillor,  277 n. 

Washington,  George,  on  Shirley,  121. 

Weare,  Nathaniel,  New  Hampshire 
agent,  247n. 

Wentworth,  Benning,  character  as  Gov¬ 
ernor  of  New  Hampshire,  24;  ap¬ 
pointment,  117w.,  267;  harmony,  268; 
salary  question,  268-270;  and  paper 
money,  270;  writs  of  election  contro¬ 
versy,  272-274;  rejects  speaker,  273; 
court  seats  conflict,  274;  minor  ques¬ 
tions,  275;  land  grabbing,  accumula¬ 
tion  of  wealth,  275,  276;  permitted 
to  resign,  276. 

Wentworth,  John  [1],  appointment  as 
Lieutenant-Governor  of  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  257 as  executive,  258; 
speaker  controversy,  258,  259;  term, 
258 n.;  salary,  260n. 


Wentworth,  John  [2],  character  as  Gov¬ 
ernor  of  New  Hampshire,  24;  recep¬ 
tion  in  Boston,  188;  appointment, 
275;  and  resignation  of  uncle,  276; 
favorable  conditions,  276;  nepotism, 
276;  popularity  and  worth  consid¬ 
ered,  277,  278,  285;  salary  question, 
278,  279,  280n.;  estate,  279,  280; 
court  seats  controversy,  280;  rup¬ 
ture  with  House,  and  meetings  of 
dissolved  House,  281;  postpones  new 
Assembly,  282;  and  conciliation,  282- 
284;  writs  of  election  question,  282- 
285;  flight,  283 n.,  284,  285;  procla¬ 
mation  from  Isle  of  Shoals,  285w. 

Wentworth,  M.  H.,  Councillor,  276w. 

Wentworth  dynasty  in  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  267,  276,  276n. 

Wiggin,  Andrew,  speaker  in  New 
Hampshire,  259 n. 

Wilks,  Francis,  Massachusetts  agent, 
90. 


Zenger,  J.  P.,  trial,  316,  317. 


Date  Due 


